Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to leave given on Friday 2 July.

Whereupon, MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Petition

Beer (Duty)

Mr. John Evans: I am privileged to present a petition to the House on behalf of the officers and thousands of members of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs. The petition points out that
any increase in duty on beer to conform with EEC proposals for the harmonisation of duty on beer and wine would have telling and damaging effects on the brewing and leisure industries of our nation.
The petition urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer
not to take any action to increase the duty on British beer.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

EXCLUSION OF EXHIBITIONS PROMOTED FOR PRIVATE GAIN FROM CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE 1909 AND 1952 ACTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (1A) below

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 9.

Mr. Lloyd: All of these amendments are important because they substantially revise clause 2, which is the central part of the Bill. They appear complicated when set out separately from the main Bill on the Amendment Paper and it may help the House if I explain the background, purpose and effect of each.
Shortly after the Bill went to another place, anxiety was expressed, notably in a letter to The Times from Mr. David Fisher, the editor of Screen Digest, that clause 2 might be construed much more widely by the courts than any of us intended. It was suggested that point of sale video in a shop might be regarded as an exhibition promoted for private gain because the end in view would be the profitable sale of goods. With my layman's respect for the courts, I found it hard to believe that they could contrive to come to such an unhelpful conclusion, but as the possibility could not be discounted and the worry was sincerely felt it seemed right to find new words that would make our intention clear beyond argument.
Initially, the words took the form of a narrower definition of an exhibition for gain. It was to be an exhibition for which admission was charged or where sums were paid that could reasonably be regarded in whole or in part as an admission charge or a contribution to an admission charge. The effect of that was to open a new realm of argument. Those connected with the industry and some noble Lords feared that a new loophole would thus be provided for unscrupulous exhibitors who are currently evading the law—the very people with whom the Bill seeks to deal. For example, they could change their businesses to catering establishments that offered food and drink at very profitable prices while the exhibition was given ostensibly free.
Fortunately, it has been possible to devise a solution that succeeds in giving a more precise and reliable effect to the Bill's original intentions and which was able to win the approval of all the parties who made representations on the suggested changes. I have pleasure in paying tribute to my noble Friend Viscount Colville of Culross, who sponsored the Bill in another place, for his skill and wisdom in accommodating the various legitimate worries that were expressed by their Lordships. I extend that


tribute to their Lordships on both sides of the Chamber in another place, and to those on the Cross Benches, who sought to help my noble Friend reach the constructive, successful and acceptable conclusion that he has bequeathed us.
I cannot forbear to mention my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Department, and his officials and draftsmen, who lent their invaluable expertise to ensure that the amendments would achieve what I and my noble Friend intended. Finally, I appreciated the persistence and good sense that was displayed by the representatives of the interested organisations, especially the British Board of Film Censors and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association, in presenting their case.
Thanks to all concerned, we now have a set of amendments before us that will help to target the Bill—it is a measure that the great majority in both Houses wish to see on the statute book—more precisely on those exhibitions it is meant to catch, and thus make doubly certain that those to whom it is not meant to apply will not inadvertently be affected.
In Lords amendment No. 3 subsection (1A) specifically excludes from the Bill's provisions
an exhibition the sole or main purpose of which is to demonstrate any product, to advertise any goods or services or to provide information, education or instruction".
The intention is to ensure that shops, banks and trading companies will not, for example, find themselves subject to licensing as a result of using video or film as part of their normal commercial activities.
Subsection (1B) of Lords amendment No. 4 defines what is meant by an exhibition "promoted for private gain". It has three limbs. The first concerns sums paid for admission to an exhibition. That is simple and straightforward. The second is somewhat more complicated and concerns sums that are paid that
can reasonably be regarded as
payment for admission. It covers exhibitions for which no overt charge is made for admission but at which everyone has to purchase an expensive programme on entry. The third limb is intended principally to block the potential loophole mentioned earlier of catering establishments offering free exhibitions. It provides that an exhibition is promoted for gain if it is advertised and if sums are paid
for facilities or services"—
for example, food or drink—
provided for persons admitted to the exhibition.".
If an establishment goes to the length of advertising exhibitions, it seems right that it should be regarded as promoting that exhibition for private gain, even if no charge is made for admission. On the other hand, I believe that the House will agree that it would be unreasonable to apply cinema licensing laws to arrangements for exhibitions that are purely incidental in, for example, a pub, bar or hotel. The requirement that an exhibition must be advertised would ensure that such incidental exhibitions would not be subject to the Bill.
9.45 am
Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 make consequential changes to the deeming provision in clause 2(2). The purpose of the subsection is to make the task of the prosecuting authorities a little less difficult than it otherwise might be. It would not always be easy to prove that the proceeds had been applied only partly for the

purpose of private gain. The amendment provides that, if the prosecution could prove that an exhibition had been advertised and that sums were paid for facilities or services, there would be a presumption that the proceeds had been applied wholly or partly for private gain. The Bill, as it did in its original form, leaves it open to the defence to prove the contrary.
Finally, clause 2(3), to which the consequential Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 relate, affords protection to non-commercial societies, organisations and clubs where proceeds are applied solely for the benefit of the organisation concerned.
I believe that these amendments clarify and improve the Bill. As I said earlier, I am grateful to my noble Friend Viscount Colville of Culross, who so ably steered the Bill through another place. It is with great confidence that I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I have participated in the debates on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading, and throughout its stages most right hon. and hon. Members have been happy to give the Bill a fair wind. We thought it very much in the best interests of everyone other than the operators of bogus cinema clubs, which in large measure the Bill sets out to outlaw. Those in another place have considered the Bill and have made some amendments. The amendments can be placed in four groups. The first group contains, in my opinion, by far the most important and crucial amendments to the Bill. They go to the heart of what the Bill is about.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) in congratulating my noble Friend Viscount Colville of Culross on sponsoring the Bill in another place and on being so understanding of the various interests and pressures that were applied in that place once the Bill had left this Chamber. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his patience in putting up with the amendments and listening to the arguments that have been adduced. He has devoted a great deal of time to making sure that the Bill is right in its final form and has worked extremely hard. As he has said, he has had the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, and his civil servants.
I supported the Bill from the outset and I continue to do so. I hope that the Lords amendments will be agreed to and that the Bill will shortly receive Royal Assent and take its place on the statute book. However, it is worth while spending a little time considering this group of amendments, which is vital and goes to the heart of the Bill. We do not want anyone reading the report of our debates this morning to get the wrong idea about why the amendments have been introduced or to have any idea that they weaken the Bill or open up loopholes or boltholes through which bogus cinema proprietors may escape. I shall deal with the background to the amendments in rather more detail than my hon. Friend.
Section 5 of the 1952 Act exempted from licensing those exhibitions to which the public are not admitted. It is clear that in the 30 years since then, bogus cinema clubs have exploited that loophole. No one knows exactly how many there are, but the best information available is that there are 70 or 80 such clubs in Greater London and a substantial number in other big cities. Not only do such bogus cinema clubs not fall within the licensing provisions for the purposes of censorship, but they are not subject to the scrutiny afforded to other cinemas with regard to


safety. The House will wish to take a view as to the strength of the arguments relating to those twin planks—safety and the nature of the material exhibited by such clubs.
When the Bill left the House of Commons, clause 2(2) provided for a test to be applied with regard to what constituted private gain in order to curb abuse without catching the bona fide film society or club or the charitable, sporting, political organisation or society which does not use the proceeds of exhibition for private gain. The latter would be excluded, but clubs putting on exhibitions for private gain would be caught. That might be regarded as a fairly wide catchment, but there seemed to be unanimous support for the widest possible coverage to ensure that no bogus club could get around the legislation.
The difficulties were not apparent at that stage. Certainly they were not articulated at any length in the House of Commons. After the Bill had left the House of Commons, however, certain people raised objections that the Bill was drafted too widely in this respect. I draw attention to the words of Viscount Colville of Culross, who said in the debate in another place:
I say 'arguably' because of the point I am just coming to—because if there is one criticism which has been drawn to my attention and that of my honourable Friend in another place about Clause 2, it is that it might catch what is on all counts a perfectly legitimate activity".
That perfectly legitimate activity was
the display in high street shops up and down the land of the video tapes that they have available for sale or hire and whose contents cannot possibly earn the rebuke or dismay of anybody. It is a problem and it is one that certainly requires to be considered".
Viscount Colville of Culross continued:
I am not, at the moment, sure that there is any grave need for apprehension about it, although it has been to some extent expressed in the newspapers and in correspondence, because an exhibition under Clause 2 has to be promoted for private gain and these particular exhibitions will be only incidental to the ordinary business of the shop, which is, among other things, the hiring or selling of video tapes. But I see that there could arguably be said to be an element of private gain, in that the person or the company owning the shop would hope to make some money out of the sale or hire of the tapes".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 1982; c. 255–6.]
That must be so, as that is presumably the purpose of the high street business activities of shops such as Radio Rentals or Visionhire. I mention the latter firm, from which I happen to rent, in the hope of getting a discount next time I pay my bill in return for that extra plug in the House of Commons.
As the Second Reading debate in another place continued, the concern about the Bill as it had left the House of Commons was made clear by Lord Mishcon, who quoted the letter in The Times to which reference has been made today. It seems that the power of The Times is still great when a single letter published in it can virtually bring to a halt legislation before Parliament. Certainly it can be brought to a halt for second thoughts and further consideration.
As that letter, from the editor of Screen Digest, Mr. Fisher, is so important and material to the Lords amendments before us, I hope that it will not be considered amiss if I quote it at length. Mr. Fisher was unhappy with the wording of clause 2 because, he said,
A shop displaying the video programmes which are there offered for sale would become a 'cinema' with all that entails in terms of licensing, fire regulations, British film quota and Eady levy requirements. Moreover, by extension, any point-of-sale

display using film or video, whatever the commodity being sold, is in furtherance of private gain and thus open to classification as a cinematograph exhibition. Similarly affected would be industrial training courses (even when run in-company they are intended to enhance private gain), conferences, sales representatives' portable audio-visual desktop kits, the front-of-house video displays now appearing outside some cinemas, even videotext terminals and receivers".
In the last sentence of his letter, Mr. Fisher makes a plea that it should not be left
to a succession of lengthy and costly lawsuits to re-define the meaning of 'cinematograph exhibition for private gain' by means of case law".
Having read that, I rather agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and my noble Friend Lord Elton about the strength of that objection to the Bill.
Lord Elton said:
I would only like to confirm that it is certainly not the Government's intention that the Bill should operate to bring licensing controls down on the head"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. If the hon. Gentleman is quoting from debates in the other place, I must remind him that it is only in order to quote a Minister. If he wishes to quote another lord, he must paraphrase.

Mr. Proctor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am now quoting Lord Elton, Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office. Previously I quoted a letter that appeared in The Times. For ease of reference, I quoted it from the speech made in the other place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in order to quote from The Times.

10 am

Mr. Proctor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt a copy of The Times would be provided if I wished to make a further quotation. However, I have dealt with that point sufficiently well and I do not propose to return to it. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice.
To continue, Lord Elton said:
I would only like to confirm that it is certainly not the Government's intention that the Bill should operate to bring licensing controls down on the head of someone who, for example, is innocently showing a demonstration video cassette as part of his shop's normal commercial operation. Nor do I think—and here I entirely agree with my noble Friend—that the Bill does have this effect.
Viscount Colville of Culross then said:
it is all too well known that those who wish to evade the provisions of this brand of legislation could well use their ingenuity so as to take advantage of them. Therefore, anything that does go in has really got to be very carefully examined indeed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 1982; Vol. 431, c. 264–265.]
That refers to amendments that might be made in the other place to deal with the point raised by Viscount Colville of Culross, which was summarised in the quotation from The Times.
I certainly share the original view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham that there was no need to change the Bill, as then drafted, to meet that point. He said that he trusted the courts to act sensibly. I certainly share that view. However, initially, it would be for the local authority to decide whether to take action against someone whom it thought had transgressed the licensing laws by not applying for a licence. Therefore, in an extreme example, if Visionhire, Radio Rentals or any other high street firm did not apply to the local authority, it would be the local


authority's job to inform the company that it did not have a licence and, if it felt strongly enough, to take the company to court if it was reluctant to apply for a licence. Therefore, I rely on the common sense of local authorities.
I accept that there are many local authorities and that they are not all Conservative-controlled. In many ways we fundamentally disagree with, for example, Labour-controlled authorities, but even a Labour-controlled authority or an extremist authority such as the GLC would not be so stupid as to take Visionhire or Radio Rentals to court under this legislation. However, there is an exception. If a firm—not a firm as respectable as Visionhire or Radio Rentals—tried to promote the sale or rental of television sets, video recorders or tapes by showing blue movies in the high street, the authority would naturally take action against it. However, all hon. Members would agree that the authority was right to do so. Therefore, I rely not only on our trust in the courts and on their good sense, but also on the good sense of local authorities. In saying that, I may be on dangerous ground, because perhaps not every hon. Member would agree with me about the amount of trust that can be given to all local authorities. However, I am trying to be my usual charitable self this morning.
Things came to a grinding halt in the other place, because there was a pause between Second Reading and the Committee stage, on 21 June. Viscount Colville of Culross made it clear that he was perfectly happy to hold talks with all the interested parties and said that he would try to meet the objections that had been made. In Committee, on 21 June, he brought forward, I believe, six amendments to meet the points raised and to make exemptions for high street shop displays of perfectly harmless video tapes. He said:
The argument has always been that, if you said that you should not without a licence exhibit cinematograph material for private gain, you could argue that this included a shop which was attempting to persuade its customers to buy or hire a video tape or film".
He mentioned that there were 300 licensing authorities around the country
anyone of which might take it into its head to say that such a shop should be licensed".
I have already made my view clear. I do not think that that would happen. Nevertheless, Viscount Colville of Culross continued
What I therefore wish to seek advice upon is this. Shall this House, looking at a problem which is known to exist whereby we could completely clog up the district councils if there was any question of them having to license all the high street shops having point-of-sale displays, try to put in something that will exempt them, even if it means that we have to rely on other legislation in order to deal with the slightly more recondite but, nevertheless important exhibitions of a different sort?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1982; Vol. 431, c. 870–72.]
That provoked further discussion and debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham is interested in training films. Time was allowed for second thoughts, including thoughts on training videos. That subject was not adequately covered in the House. However, there has been a great boom in them although, the House does not intend to catch them.
Problems arose over the choice of words in the amendment of Viscount Colville. There is the problem of the pub, bar or restaurant showing a full length film, perhaps one or two nights a week, for which there would be no charge or perhaps only a small charge for entry.

those establishments would have been exempted by the first set of Viscount Colville's amendments. They should not be exempted.
Viscount Colville argued that other legislation was available. He admitted that the exemptions created by his amendments went wider than exemptions to deal with high street shops but argued that the other establishments would still be caught. On safety grounds, public houses or restaurants that showed video films would be caught by legislation covering the licensing justices and inquiries about exits and fire precautions. There was also the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. The material that the restaurants or hotels might show would be controlled by the Indecent Displays (Control) Act, or by schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill currently going through Parliament. If those Acts did not apply, there was the obscenity law.
Members of the Upper House were, rightly, not happy with that position. They felt that it was clumsy to have to rely on other legislation relating, for example, to public houses, to achieve the necessary control. They believed that the control should be contained in cinematograph legislation. I agree very much with the point that they put forward.
It was suggested, first, I think, by Lord Mishcon, relying on advice that I also received yesterday from the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association, that a way out of the difficulty might be to set out in the legislation those areas that one wants to exclude. As a layman, I consider that eminently sensible. If one wants to exclude something in legislation, one should say so. However, that fails to take into account the parliamentary draftsmen with their rules, precedents, skills, expertise and professional wisdom, with which hon. Members wrestle at their peril.
10.15 am
The association suggested that four areas might be exempted. These were promoting the sale of equipment for the display of moving pictures, promoting the sale of goods or services in premises used for the purpose of selling such goods or services, commercial or industrial training purposes—that would certainly have suited my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham—and displaying statistics and other data increasingly used in commerce and industry.
Concern has also been expressed by others in the film industry. One would not wish to include in the Bill anything that harms the British film industry. The reverse is the case. I see this measure as helping substantially the legitimate cinema proprietor or operator. I do not wish to become involved in an argument about the state of the British cinema industry. Lord Elton remarked that while he accepted the view of the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association, he did not wish to see the Bill used in an attempt to balance one part of the market operation with another. He wanted to keep his eye on bogus cinema clubs.
Lord Elton, referring to the association's concern, said:
It focused on the fact that the amendment defines an exemption for private gain strictly in terms of sums paid, directly or indirectly, for admission, and they felt that thereby a significant area of operation which they had supposed would be caught by the Bill in fact would not be caught by the Bill".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1982, Vol. 431, c. 874.]
Notwithstanding my noble Friend's view, I happen to think that a fair point is made. It is important, given the


state of the British cinema industry, that the regulations should be fair and applied equally to all. That factor should not be ignored in this Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: Can we buy a video of this?

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Gentleman asks from a seated position whether it is possible to buy a video of these proceedings. There would not be much sale for such videos.

Mr. Fraser: That is what I mean.

Mr. Proctor: I have no doubt about that. I would not suggest that a video is made. I am very much against the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. This morning's proceedings demonstrate why I take that view. Perhaps not even everyone who is here knows what is afoot and if our proceedings were broadcast there might be wide misunderstanding about what is taking place.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The proceedings of this morning and similar mornings may not be suitable material for broadcasts, but does my hon. Friend think that such material might be suitable for clubs?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) will not be tempted away from the amendment.

Mr. Proctor: I would not dream of being tempted away from the amendment, which I am addressing with loving care and to the best of my ability.
It was accepted that the amendments of Viscount Colville would not meet the point and they were withdrawn so that the matter could be considered again on Report on 1 July. Further representations were made and soundings were taken. Among the bodies that made representations was the British Board of Film Censors, and its views were quoted by Lord Jenkins of Putney. I know that there are difficulties about quoting what is said in another place, but perhaps I may quote the part of Lord Jenkins' speech in which he quoted the views of the BBFC.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, it is not in order to quote speeches made in another place, except those made by Ministers. The hon. Gentleman may paraphrase what was said, but he must not quote.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I misunderstood your earlier ruling.
The BBFC said that the original amendments would create substantial loopholes and it feared that they would be used by video clubs, restaurants and bars and by disreputable bogus cinema operators. The board raised the important point that there would be no resriction on children seeing films in such establishments. It is possible for children, even those under 14, to go into such establishments and the current law would not prevent children seeing X-rated video films.
The BBFC imposes licensing conditions and ratings for films shown by reputable cinemas. It feared that video cinemas could charge for food, drink or programmes and get round the law in that way. The view of the board was put forcefully by Lord Jenkins who proposed amendments to the Bill.
Lord Birkett said that if there were a separate room in a pub where a video film was being shown children under

14 could be admitted. He warned that we should not leave in our legislation a gap that could be exploited in that way. Lord Birkett said that the words
for admission to the exhibition
in Viscount Colville's amendments could cause difficulties.
My noble Friend Baroness Hornsby-Smith outlined three ways in which a bogus operation could be set up. First, people could be required to pay for admission to the films. I believe that that route would be ruled out by the Bill. Secondly, charges could be made for food, drinks or programmes, but not for the film. Baroness Hornsby-Smith felt that would be a way of getting round the Bill, but I am not so sure.
The third possible method was that on a slack night for bar trade, say a Monday or Tuesday, a pub could put on a film, and not increase any charges for drink or impose any hidden charges. The advertised attraction of a video film could bring in more customers and thus increase the pub's revenue. The original amendments tabled by Viscount Colville would not have caught such an operation.
There was still considerable doubt about the state of clause 2, even on Third Reading. The sponsors of the Bill must have been worried, because time was running out and the Bill was needed. With that in mind, I am keeping a careful eye on the clock. Until Third Reading it had not been decided what to do about the amendments. A final agreement and compromise was reached after all interested parties had been consulted and after hours of consideration. The compromise was in two parts as set out in the Lords amendments before us.
The first part contained a list—back to the layman's approach—of which areas should be excluded for the purpose of the Bill. Lords amendment No. 3 states:
(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an exhibition the sole or main purpose of which is to demonstrate any product, to advertise any goods or services or to provide information, education or instruction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham made it clear that the intention of that amendment is to exclude the rental shops in the high street that have been mentioned, banks and other commercial operations, and the use of training videos which is growing rapidly with the new technology available. We are pleased to see amendment No. 3.
It was more difficult to define "for private gain". An attempt to do so is contained in Lords amendment No. 4. That amendment contains the word "advertise" and defines whether an exhibition that has been advertised should be construed to be for private gain.

Mr. Michael Colvin: There are two forms of advertising. There is the advertising of the film, and advertising that is increasingly carried upon the film itself. It is now the practice of video manufacturers to cover some of the cost of the production of their films by selling advertising space on the video film. Does that come within the definition of "private gain"? It covers some of the cost of the film and adds to the profit. It raises the serious question whether advertising products that are covered by other codes of practice—for example, the promotion of tobacco products—shown on X films in a home contravene that code of practice.

Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend has raised some interesting points. I cannot deal with them all, but I should like to talk to him about them.
With regard to advertising on a film cassette that might be shown to an audience—

Mr. Colvin: Children.

Mr. Proctor: —in a person's home, that would not be private gain and would not be caught by the legislation. The private gain in those circumstances—the courts would have to decide the matter—would not necessarily be to the operator of the exhibition of the film. There could be private gain to the manufacturer or distributor of the video cassette who would gain extra revenue by selling advertising space on such a video. The private gain would be to him and not necessarily to the exhibitor of the film, although, in certain circumstances, that might be one and the same person. That may be caught by the legislation. It is an interesting point and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will comment upon it.
I am in favour of advertising. I believe that the more advertising we have the better it is. I do not want to go down that path because it might be the subject of another debate, and I shall comment upon it at the appropriate moment.
The word "advertise" is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 4 and is covered by subsection (1B), which states:
An exhibition is promoted for private gain if, and only if…
(c) where the exhibition is advertised (whether to the public or otherwise)".
What do the words "or otherwise" in that part of Lords amendment No. 4 mean?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can help my hon. Friend on this, and if I am wrong I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will correct me. It could be argued whether the words "advertised to the public" were sufficiently precise. A notice outside a pub or hotel that could be seen by anybody would be advertising to the public. A note sent to selected patrons or regular customers would not be regarded as advertising to the public, but that would be caught under the heading "otherwise".

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. We should make sure that there are no loopholes through which operators of bogus clubs can escape. My hon. Friend has explained that this closes an escape route for the bogus club or cinema operator.
May I ask my hon. Friend a hypothetical question? If a bar—even for one night—had a poster placed in a window or inside the premises to advertise, not to the public but to its patrons, will that be caught under the heading of advertising the event? It might advertise that there is to be the showing of a film on a Thursday night. Let us be non-party political and call it "Reds".
People in the bar know that there is likely to be a film on Thursday night. The patron asks the barman what it is to be; the barman surreptitiously leans across the bar and says in a non-provocative way "'Reds', sir". Would a verbal acclamation of the film constitute advertising?
In the final analysis, it will be for the courts to decide and they cannot read our debates to go behind the legislation, but it would help to have clarification now. That hypothetical situation may occur frequently.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As my hon. Friend has said, it will be for the courts to decide. In all legislation, there is a grey area where we have to rely on the common sense of the

courts. The only way in which the exhibitors could with certainty avoid the possibility of the law falling on them is if they served food and drink and provided other services on that evening completely free. If they did not do that, it would be possible to argue that there was advertising in the hypothetical situation described by my hon. Friend. In the unlikely event that it ever came to prosecution, I believe that it would be difficult for a court to regard a communication such as my hon. Friend describes as advertising. But it will be for the courts to decide. We have to rely on their common sense, which they will exercise with due regard to all the circumstances.

Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend has clearly considered the situation. I am grateful to him for giving me a full answer.
If, say, at 11 o'clock when the time for drinking had come to an end the person behind the bar shouted at the top of his voice that next Thursday "Reds" was to be shown, that would clearly be advertising.
I shall support the Lords amendments. I do not wish to put at risk the Bill and its principles. It contains eminently sensible provisions. I have supported the Bill throughout, although not uncritically. I still doubt whether it is right to place different criteria and problems before the courts about what is for private gain. When cases at the margin come before them, the courts will have the difficult job to decide what is advertising. It might have been better to have left the Bill as it was before it went to the House of Lords, but I understand the pressures. I understand the desire for certainty about the operators of high street shops, training films and the other exempted categories. I accept that the parliamentary draftsmen have the right wording.
I am pleased about Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 for the further protection of non-commercial societies. There was some anxiety in Committee on that subject.
10.45 am
This is an important Bill. I hope that I have done the Lords amendments justice. We have another Bill for discussion this morning which perhaps raises more important issues for the film industry. I hope that that Bill will be carried. I await with interest the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham.

Mr. Greenway: I wish to ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on one point and shall be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for anything that he can add to reassure me. The issue is important for the health of the nation. I spoke on Second Reading and have a great interest in the Bill. I wish, too, to associate myself with one or two of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).
Many people in responsible positions and all responsible parents are anxious about the Bill as it affects children. They are currently allowed into clubs and certain areas of pubs where drinks are not served. The Bill does not alter that. However, children will be free to go into clubs and pubs and see video presentations without parental consent. Their parents will not need to accompany them and may have no idea of what they are seeing. If the Bill does not alter that, parents will not be involved in the proper upbringing of their children: they will not know


what they see, hear and learn. We should not promote that sort of society. We need parental involvement at all stages of a child's life.
In their formative years and during adolescence young people need to know what they are seeing and to converse about it later. I speak from long experience. They need to put what they see on video or any other medium in context. Violence taken out of context is the most damaging to the mind of the child. Contextual violence is not more excusable, but it is more comprehensible. Scholastic research shows that contextual violence can be more readily appreciated by, and less worrying to, children who see it on film.
I hope that the Bill's promoter will express the wish that clubs should take a responsible attitude towards the admission of children. Schools' efforts to set standards could be completely undermined. Schools set standards for material designed for a child's sound growth. They do not want children to see material that can lead to misdemeanour and violence and future misery for themselves and society.
Children can be drawn into pubs to see presentations of the type described. That is undesirable, even if the material is presented in a room set apart. It is the thin end of a rather nasty wedge. It undermines a law that is frequently discussed, but which society ha's seen fit to maintain. Society has decided that children under the age of 18 should not be admitted to pubs. There should be no way round that by showing video material.
It is undesirable for children to see on video material that some adults most want to see because often it is sadistic or violent. There is no need to encourage sadistic tendencies in children. Education and the good society seeks to eliminate that tendency. Thomas Arnold, the great headmaster of Rugby school, said that his aim was to
form Christian men, for Christian boys I can scarcely hope to make.
He said that boys—and this applies to girls but to a lesser extent—sometimes behave in a totally uncivilised manner. I brought that out, I hope vividly, in my Second Reading speech in my reference to William Golding's book "Lord of the Flies" in which is described the gross violence that can come upon children of tender years, and of more mature years. We shall do all that we can, not to be too censorious, because that is clumsy in educational terms, to give children guidance and parameters for the way that they live and what they see.
Milton Shulman, a television commentator of distinction, said that violence on television is damaging, to children in particular, and to some adults. He was speaking in the context of advertising. A minute's advertising time can persuade people to purchase a great deal of material. People are influenced by advertising and large sums are spent on it because television is such an influential medium. If Milton Shulman is right violence on television can also have a strong influence on people.
It is absurd to try to clean up violence on television and then to allow it to be transferred to video clubs and pubs where it is available to children. We are trying to make a major reform in one area, only for it to be undermined in another. I hope that I can be assured about that fundamental and important matter.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The amendments have the Government's full support. I thank the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the

Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) for his generous remarks about those who have assisted him in bringing the Bill to this stage. I am sure that what he said about my noble Friend, Viscount Colville of Culross, officials in the Home Office, the British Board of Film Censors and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association will be gratefully received. All involved have furthered the Bill's purpose, as expressed on Second Reading.
I remind the House that the Bill's purpose is to close the loophole represented by the bogus cinema clubs about which my hon. Friends the Members for Fareham and Basildon (Mr. Proctor) have spoken.
Operators of cinema clubs have for many years been able to say "I am not showing this film or making an exhibition in breach of the law because this is a club. Members of the public are not able to come in as of right. Therefore"—and this is the nub—"I am able to show films which have not been passed by the British Board of Film Censors because they do not have to be licensed by the local authority." We have had a satisfactory indirect censorship system in Britain for many years. Under the Cinematograph Acts we have provided for local authorities to license cinemas and the showing of films.
In practice, local authorities grant licences 'with conditions. The Acts give them the power to impose conditions. The most important condition normally applied is that no film should be shown where the public is admitted if it has not been passed by the British Board of Film Censors. Local authorities often apply their own standards of censorship, but frequently they insist that films carry the British Board of Film Censors' certificate.
With the ingenuity that characterises anyone who tries to make money out of sex, it was not long before the bogus cinema clubs were invented. They have caused considerable anxiety to many people for a long time. The Government of 1970–1974 introduced their own Bill—the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill—which contained provisions similar to those in this Bill. Unfortunately, that Bill fell and did not get on to the statute book.
11 am
That being so, the concept has been adopted in my hon. Friend's Bill, which was greatly approved by the House on Second Reading, that promotion for private gain should be the new criterion; in other words, it is no good just saying that premises are a club if it is shown that they are putting on exhibitions by showing films, video or whatever for private gain. If other circumstances also applied they have to get a licence and, therefore, the opportunity to censor is provided.
In the way that so often comes about when Bills are subjected to careful scrutiny, not only by parliamentarians in either House but also—and often more important—by people who will be affected by them and who know the details of the trade concerned, it became clear that the Bill would bite upon people, businesses, operations and activities which were never in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. Among those one might give as examples people who provide video exhibitions to help them sell their goods in the high street—what have come to be called in our discussions "point of sale exhibitions". It was never intended that the local authority should have to license that kind of use of a video and a screen whose purpose was solely to help the tradesman or retailer to sell whatever it was he was trying to sell in his shop.
Amendments were moved in the other place to make it clear that that was not the intention. But then it again appeared—and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon mentioned one of the people who brought the unintended consequence to notice—that we might, if we were not careful, create, instead of bogus clubs, bogus pubs and bogus catering establishments, which would be able to say "Despite the new Bill that, in its wisdom, Parliament has brought forward, we are not caught because we are exempted. We are not doing anything here for private gain. We are inviting people to come and buy our drinks and food, and it just so happens that in an adjoining room on the same premises a full-length film is being run." That would be an intolerable consequence if it came about.
There was uncertainty whether it would come about, but the point was made in the letter, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and which appeared in The Times, that the matter would be put beyond doubt only after substantial litigation and that that surely was not what Parliament intended.
In consequence, lengthy consultations took place. My noble Friend Lord Colville of Culross said that he was prepared to withdraw his amendments and to consider what was said. After a great deal of consultation, in which I am glad that officials of the Home Office were able to play a valuable part, it became apparent that this problem could be overcome by making it clear that if an exhibition were advertised in the circumstances that I have tried to describe, the exemption would not apply to it and licensing would have to be obtained.
I am happy to say that all concerned recognised that the real worry was thereby overcome, and on Third Reading in the other place a further amendment to that effect was moved. That amendment forms the kernel of the group that we are discussing.
I have been asked a number of questions, and I shall try to answer them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) asked what would be the position if there were advertising on the video itself and whether that would be caught. The Bill is concerned with the circumstances in which an exhibition is given and, with the exception of the subject matter mentioned in subsection (1A), not with what is shown. It is the circumstances of the exhibition which matter. Therefore, it is not a relevant consideration whether advertising is included on the video cassette. The critical question for the purpose of paragraph (c) of subsection (1B) is whether the exhibition itself is advertised. I think that that is the sensible way to frame the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon asked what would happen if someone in the club wanted to know what was on next Friday and the barman told him. These are always matters of degree. One distinguishes at one extreme between the mere imparting of information—and that example would fall into that category, without doubt—and at the other extreme, the posting of information on the walls of premises and advertising in a way that falls fair and square within one's ordinary understanding of the word "advertising". No doubt there are cases in between. That is why we have to rely on the good sense of courts and prosecutors to arrive at a sensible and just result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon asked what was meant by advertising

whether to the public or otherwise".
That was answered completely correctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, who said that if a note were sent to members of the club saying what was to happen on the following Friday that would not be advertising to the public but would be advertising in the sense other than to members of the club and would be caught by the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked some very important questions about children and stressed the need not to relax the protection for children that Parliament has for long insisted upon in legislation affecting cinemas.
The Bill will afford full safeguards for children. If a pub or a club advertises an exhibition and provides food or drink for payment, paragraph (c) of subsection (1B) will ensure that a licence is needed. If a direct or indirect charge is made for admission, the licensing arrangements will also apply. The licensing authority can then impose censorship conditions and, if they are contravened by, for example, a child under the age of 18 being permitted to see an X film, an offence will be committed. The position is a good deal more reassuring than my hon. Friend supposed.
I hope that I have said enough to answer the questions specifically addressed to me. I end, as I began, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham on having played his part in the improvement of the Bill that is represented in the amendments finally passed in another place on Third Reading. My hon. Friend played a very important part in getting the balance right, as the Government believe that it is right. We have avoided some quite unintended and unforeseen pitfalls as a result of the scrutiny devoted to the Bill not only in Parliament but outside. For my part, I am grateful to everyone who has played a part in that process. I am sure that the Bill is better, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on having brought it to this stage.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I do not wish to go over any of the ground that was so well covered by my hon. and learned Friend in his reply. However, I should like to reply to one question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). He asked whether Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would alter the exemptions and privileges that were to be enjoyed under the original Bill by non-profit making organisations. That position has not been changed. The amendments are consequential on others that have been introduced elsewhere in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 3, leave out from "which" to "and" in line 5 and insert
section 7(4) of the 1909 Act (exhibitions in private dwelling-houses) applies

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Apart from the amendments that have just been considered, the amendments made in another place are almost entirely of a drafting and technical nature and do not raise issues of substance. Amendment No. 2 is a drafting amendment which, in the light of amendments made in this House on Report, corrects a reference to
section 7(4) of the 1909 Act".

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 5

POWERS OF ENTRY

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 4, line 11, leave out
to the licensing authority

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 21.

Mr. Lloyd: The amendments are all of a technical and drafting nature and do not raise any issues of substance. Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 15, 19, 20 and 21 correct an anomaly concerning the fire authority in relation to exhibitions to which sections 7(2) and (3) of the 1909 Act apply.
The exhibitions concerned are those that are held occasionally or in moveable buildings or structures. By virtue of the provisions of clause 5, the fire authority would have power to inspect such premises to ensure that they comply with fire safety requirements. As matters stand, while the local authority and the police have to be notified in advance of such exhibitions, there is no requirement to inform the fire authority. Clearly that is an omission that we wish to correct, which is what the amendments seek to do.
Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 17 are again drafting amendments, the purpose of which is to move the definition of "fire authority" to a more convenient and appropriate place in the Bill.
Amendment No. 13 adds a definition of "chief officer of police" to the other definitions in clause 9.
Finally, amendment No. 18 makes it clear that a local authority may issue licences only in respect of premises in its own area.

Mr. Proctor: I shall not delay the House too long but I wish to raise one or two points. The amendments relate to safety aspects with particular reference to fire. The 1909 and 1952 Acts were largely concerned, and rightly so, with the hazards of film, and a complicated area of law has been established on safety. Since then, there have been technical developments resulting in safety film which is not self-combustible and melts under the influence of flame and heat. I welcome the revisions made by the Lords amendments. I hope when my hon. Friend replies he will say something about the safety of film and cinemas.
The safety regulations for cinemas made in 1955 ranged over a wide area. I understand that they are currently being revised and that their restructuring will be soon complete. When will the revised regulations come to the House? They are needed as a result of the new technology, which is one of the motive forces behind the introduction of the Bill and the advent of the multiple auditorium cinemas that have been established successfully in Britain.
As I understand the amendment to clause 5, the definition of a police officer will be inserted after line 27 of clause 9. There will then be a definition of "exempted exhibition", followed by a definition of a fire officer at the end of line 30 and before line 31. Is there a reason for separating the fire officer and police officer in the list of definitions in clause 9(1)?
Perhaps that is just the way the drafting went. It does not seem very logical to me, but perhaps there is a reason for doing it in that way.
There are two further small points. On the subject of exhibitions of cinematograph material in "moveable buildings or structures", I wonder whether either the Minister or my hon. Friend knows the extent of such exhibitions. Are they widespread? Are they confined to rural areas—for quite understandable reasons? Are they confined to moving vehicles—a converted bus, or something of that nature, acting as a cinema—as opposed to a moveable building? Would a cinema bus, if such a thing exists, come under "moveable buildings or structures" in Lords amendment No. 19(2)?
On amendment No. 18, I agree that it would be nonsense for one local authority to be able to grant a licence outside its own area. I am glad that that loophole has been blocked. It would have been ridiculous if an operator who wanted to obtain a licence and failed to get it from a strict authority managed to get one in another area where a more lenient view was taken of these matters. I therefore commend Lords amendment No. 18, because it blocks what could have been a serious loophole, and because it could have given rise to bureaucratic difficulties if operators went from one to the next of the 300 local authorities until they finally found one that would grant them a licence.
Finally, some of the matters raised by these amendments are not just technical. The amendments pave the way, as does the Bill, for a consolidation measure. Perhaps at this late stage in our deliberations I could impress on my hon. and learned Friend the Minister the need to consolidate as quickly as possible. Certainly the industry wants consolidation at the earliest possible moment. Those of us who have had to wrestle with my hon. Friend's excellent Bill in its various stages know that we have to refer to both the 1909 and the 1952 Acts. I have mentioned the fire regulations of 1955, and there are other matters, too. Consolidation would mean that everyone could be clear about the law relating to cinematograph exhibitions. If the law is unclear or shrouded in mystery or complexity, it is more likely to be held in disrepute or ignored. I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend for any assurances, but I hope that he will be able to give us good news about progress towards consolidation, to which this Bill is obviously a stepping stone.

Mr. Mayhew: May I take up, first, the point about consolidation? I referred to the matter on Second Reading. Certainly, all the legislation on this subject needs to be brought within the confines of one statute, because it is difficult fully to understand the law when one has to hop from one set of regulations to another and from one statute to another. We hope, therefore, to achieve that consolidation as scion as possible. We hope that an early consolidation of the 1909 and 1952 Acts and this Bill, when it is enacted, will be possible.
A number of questions have been raised in the debate. I entirely agree with the promoter when he said that these are drafting and technical amendments. In our view, they are highly desirable, sensible and uncontroversial.
The fire safety regulations are, of course, the Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations of 1955 and their Scottish equivalents, and they are in the course of review. These are matters of technical difficulty, and the resources of the Departments concerned and of the draftsmen's office are not unlimited. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot proceed as fast as we should like. However, we


intend to get on as fast as we can, and I hope that it will not be unduly long before we are in a position to update those regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) raised a drafting point, which is a little hard on the consideration of Lords amendments, about the precise order of the definitions of police officers and fire officers. There is an explanation. It relates to the basis on which the drafting is carried out. It is done in alphabetical order, and I think that that is the reason.
The hon. Gentleman asked to what extent moveable buildings are used. I do not have any precise information about the number of exhibitions in moveable buildings, but we believe tht they are pretty infrequent. A cinema bus would probably not be regarded as a moveable building or structure but, if necessary, control could be exercised through the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that were put to me, and that I have adequately disposed in a short reply of the matters that cause concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 21 agreed to.

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No 22, in page 11, line 44, column 3, leave out "2" and insert "3".

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is another drafting amendment. As a result of a schedule being added to the Criminal Justice Act, the reference to schedule 2 to that Act in this Bill is now to be to schedule 3.

Mr. Proctor: May I, on this most esoteric of Lords amendments and drafting points, be allowed to go out of order for a short time to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham on achieving the completion of his Bill, on the hard work that he has done to bring it through the House of Commons, on being patient and watchful of the deliberations in the Upper House and on always being courteous in replying to the many questions that I and other hon. Members have asked him. I also congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and other Ministers who dealt with the Bill in earlier stages. I thank his Department for its help on this measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Forfeiture Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF INHERITANCE (PROVISION FOR FAMILY AND DEPENDANTS) ACT 1975

Lords amendment: No. 1, to leave out clause 1.

Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 7 to 9, 14 and 15.

Mr. Abse: The fact that the amendments are so elegantly drawn and enable the intentions of the sponsors to be clearly carried out is largely due to the considerable help that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) and I received from the Solicitor-General, who, while maintaining Government neutrality, implemented all the undertakings that we gave earlier. I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to acknowledge the considerable assistance that we received in the other place from the Lord Chancellor's Department, and in drafting the amendments from the Department of Health and Social Security.
The matter raised in amendment No. 8 properly dominated our debate on Report. Understandably, the House expressed abhorrence at any suggestion that the long-established forfeiture rule—the rule of public policy that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another from acquiring financial benefit in consequence of the slaying—should be modified in the case of murder. The amendment makes it clear that in no circumstances would there be any denting of the principle that no man or woman can benefit from his or her wrong if the wrong is murder. No poisoner eager for an estate will ever gain from this legislation. Amendment No. 8 draws a needed sharp distinction between murder and other acts that may amount to unlawful killing but that may, in the view of judges and juries, fall far short of the deliberate act of murder.
Equally, amendment No. 2 makes it clear that a court will now have the power to take a different view of forfeiture if the circumstances merit it. One example is the aged wife who has survived a suicide pact with her husband and who may be totally deprived of benefit for the rest of her short life from the husband's estate. The amendment covers cases of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of a person, contrary to the Suicide Act 1961.
Amendment No. 2 also clearly defines the forfeiture rule and thus paves the way for amendment No. 3 which, amendment No. 1 having removed clause 1, sets out the main purpose of the sponsors in framing the Bill and expresses the views of the House when it approved the principle of the Bill.
Amendment No. 3 lays down the parameters within which the court may exercise its new discretion to modify the forfeiture rule. The new clause states:
In any case where a person stands convicted of an offence of which unlawful killing is an element, the court shall not make an order under this section modifying the effect of the forfeiture


rule in that case unless proceedings for the purpose are brought before the expiry of the period of three months beginning with his conviction.
The battered wife who, after years of enduring her husband's sadistic behaviour, yields in a mad moment to a retaliatory act that causes her brutal husband's death, may be found guilty not of murder but of manslaughter. In such a case the court may believe that justice does not require that she should be driven out of the matrimonial home owned by the husband or wholly deprived of income from the husband's estate.
Amendment No. 2 will give the court elbow room to exercise its discretion and enable it to take into account the financial position of a supplicant praying for the court's discretion. Moreover, the amendment protects those who administer an estate by placing a time limit on an application praying for the court's discretion. Application must be made within three months after a conviction. Although that period may be short, given the possible condition of someone who has experienced the trauma of a gruelling trial, it would impose too heavy a burden on administrators and be unfair to other beneficiaries to allow the distribution of an estate to be delayed for too long. The sponsors concur with the view that three months is about right and I hope that the House agrees.
This group of amendments was discussed fully in another place. The sponsors are grateful to the noble Lord Mischon for the sophisticated way in which he steered the Bill through the House of Lords.
The other amendments are technical and consequential. If the House needs further expansion of my rather synoptic summary of the intentions of the amendments, I am sure that the Solicitor-General, who has been exceedingly generous during the progress of the Bill, will amplify and clarify the effects of those amendments as he did at every other stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 2

APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR RELIEF BY WIDOWS

Lords amendment: No. 5, leave out clause 2.

Mr. Abse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 6.

Mr. Abse: Lords amendment No. 5 rids the Bill of its original clause 2, which sought to enable a widow who, by her own act, caused her widowhood in some cases nevertheless to obtain national insurance benefits which otherwise would be barred to her by the forfeiture rule. Lords amendment No. 6 puts this intention into effect in a much more sophisticated manner. Although the clause is complex, as appears to be the inevitable wont of laws dealing with social security matters, the prime aim is to provide that in all circumstances where it can be envisaged that the application of the forfeiture rule arises in relation to entitlements to a State benefit, the issue shall be determined by a commissioner rather than starting at the bottom of the adjudicating ladder.
Those who have trade union experience, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood), will especially appreciate the readiness on the part of the

commissioners to place no obstacle in the way of the intention expressed in Lords amendment No. 6. The commissioners have intimated informally their readiness to take aboard the handful of cases that may arise each year. These cases will be adjudicated by them at the highest level. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be inappropriate for such cases to appear before local tribunals or to be subject to the inevitably prolonged appellant procedures that normally apply. We are pleased that the commissioners have agreed to take these cases. The commissioners have made it clear that the Department will give its assistance in these rather complex issues and will implement the intention that is set out in the amendments.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I was rather surprised that there was no debate on the first group of amendments, and I was rather slow in not rising to make a contribution at the conclusion of the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I thought that other hon. Members would want to contribute to a discussion on the first group of amendments. However, I am not too late to thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind observations about me and to disclaim most of them. The assistance to which he referred was given almost entirely by my officials and the draftsmen. However, I am sure that the thanks that he expressed will be much appreciated by them.
11.45 am
Without going right out of order, I shall make one or two observations that I intended to make when the first group of amendments was before the House by drawing a distinction between that group and the present group. We are making a different provision from that which was made in the first group of amendments. The effect of the first group is to preserve the manner in which it is decided whether the forfeiture rule, whatever that rule may be, shall apply. That issue is still to be decided by the courts according to the common law rule. By choosing to deal with the matter in that way it has been possible to avoid the difference of opinion which undoubtedly exists on the exact nature of the rule—whether it is a rule which operates as a matter of law to deprive someone of a legal interest at the moment of killing, or whether it is a practice, that is followed by the courts, of declining to allow the courts to be used to enforce an interest that has been acquired.
Happily, it has not been necessary to pursue that difference of opinion to a conclusion. As the hon. Member for Pontypool has said, the sophisticated formula that has been chosen avoids that necessity and leaves it to the courts to decide according to the law as it stands whether the forfeiture rule, whatever it means, is to apply. If they decide that it does not apply, that is the end of the issue because there is no loss of rights. Where the courts decide, following the existing law and practice, that the forfeiture rule, whatever it means precisely, is to apply and that the person concerned, but for the Bill, is to be deprived of all rights, the courts will have a discretion under the Bill to award to such person some but not all of those rights by applying the tests to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is on that basis that the Government feel able to maintain a neutrality. At an earlier stage the Government adopted that position and it has been accepted


by the sponsors. It has been implemented by the amendments and the complications to which I have referred have been avoided.
The House should know that there is no question of any court being allowed to award half a pension or a fraction of a pension. The sponsors have been good enough to accede to the arguments that it would be impracticable to do so. Although that cannot be done, I hope that the House will agree that the provisions before it are an improvement. Broadly speaking, they ensure that any issue concerning whether the forfeiture rule should apply to social security benefits will be heard in the first instance at commissioner level.
I have given a brief and sketchy description of a complicated procedure. There are so many benefits and so many different ways in which entitlement to them can be decided that any simplification is bound to dispense with some accuracy. The Government's view is that an improvement has been made. Although these issues do not arise very often they are enormously important both to those concerned and to the State. Happily, the number of occasions on which this may arise is small and the Government believe that the procedure for dealing with claims for social security benefits which will be substituted for the existing arrangements will be an improvement.
I hope that I have given sufficient indication of the Government's view. It is one of neutrality on the first part and perhaps a little more than that—a benevolent neutrality—on the clause before us today, which we regard as a distinct improvement.

Mr. Peter Archer: I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on the success of the course on which he embarked so many months ago. It is a classic example of the way in which a narrow, undramatic but quite important matter of law reform can reach the statute book. My hon. Friend, with his experience of these matters, recognised a problem in which there was injustice from time to time and persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood), who had drawn a favourable position in the ballot, to espouse the Bill.
The first attempt to solve the problem clearly presented difficulties. As the Solicitor-General has fairly said, there were differences of opinion, first, as to the precise state of the law, and secondly, on policy—how far we should go in certain directions. Those difficulties were resolved away from the Chamber and the House was not troubled with the technical discussions. A great part of a politician's life consists of unexciting technical discussions which take place away from the limelight and are never reported in the media. Those discussions took place with good will all round and we are grateful to the Government for making available so much official expertise. Those who will have to administer the legislation when it reaches the statute book, particularly the commissioner's office, were more than helpful.
All that now remains is to congratulate both my hon. Friends. At a much earlier stage in our deliberations I ventured to predict that future generations would speak of the Homewood Act as they speak of Fox's libel legislation and other Acts of that kind. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool is in the process of steering towards the statute book the ninth measure of this kind

with which he has been associated. In this context, I add my recognition of the very helpful way in which the Solicitor-General has approached these matters. It is a matter for rejoicing that a measure of law reform of this nature can make the progress that has been made in this instance.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I participated in the last debate on this matter in the House and I have read the proposed amendments with interest. I readily accept what has been said by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about the improvements effected in another place.
When I spoke on the last occasion, I asked for an assurance that this measure would not materially add to the cost of legal aid because I feared that a person who had been sentenced for an act covered by the Bill might spend a considerable time when serving the sentence in fighting an issue under the Bill at public expense. I felt that that would be wrong.
I therefore inquire now whether the Lords amendments are likely to affect that previous undertaking to any material extent. Although I previously viewed some aspects of the Bill with some misgivings, I was assured that issues such as euthanasia which might arise out of the Bill were amply covered in the provisions for the consideration of individual cases. Nevertheless, after the comments of the Lord Chancellor about the enormous escalation in the legal aid bill—I believe that it has increased from about £½ million a few years ago to about £112 million now—it still troubles me that this may be yet another case in which an additional burden will be placed upon the taxpayer. It is an important consideration and we have the right to know whether that is the case. I should be grateful for an answer on that point.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I will comment on that point. I cannot say that this will not add anything to the legal aid bill, as there may be cases in which an application comes before the court with the assistance of legal aid. I have no qualms, however, in saying that I cannot imagine it adding any significant amount to the legal aid bill because, although unlawful killing is a matter of great importance and seriousness, the number of people who commit such acts is, happily, small and the number who would have a claim against an estate would be only a fraction of the total. Indeed, I suppose that the question would arise only if there were assets worth going to law about. Moreover, it by no means follows that every person who had such a claim would need legal aid as there might be assets out of which the costs would be paid.
I cannot say that there will not be some cases in which there would be some additional requirement for legal aid, but I do not think that my hon. Friend need fear that it would make any real inroad into the amount of money available. Indeed, if I thought that it might, I would share my hon. Friend's misgivings. I have a dozen priorities for every extra penny to be spent on legal aid and if I felt that I was to be thwarted in any of those extensions I should certainly share my hon. Friend's concern. However, I do not believe that that is the case. I hope that that will set my hon. Friend's mind at rest.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.

New Clause F

CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords amendment: No. 10, after clause 4, insert the following new clause—
F. An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House."

Mr. Abse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 13.

Mr. Abse: The amendments simply regularise the position on Northern Ireland. The law concerning the forfeiture rule in Northern Ireland is broadly similar to that in England and Wales. Amendment No. 10 allows corresponding provision to be made for Northern Ireland, but by Order in Council subject to negative rather than affirmative resolution in Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 2, line 17, leave out "Relief from"

12 noon

Mr. Abse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment alters the title of the Bill. It arose from observations made by the Lord Chancellor, which were, of course, fully appreciated by Lord Mishcon in the other place. In the other place, it was noticed that the original title "Relief from Forfeiture" could lead to some confusion, because it was too similar to the expression "Relief against forfeiture", which will be well known to those hon. Members who are lawyers, and which, as they will know, has a particular meaning in an entirely different area of law relating to leases. To prevent such confusion it is only sensible to describe the Bill simply as the "Forfeiture Bill".

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(1A) Section [Commissioner to decide whether rule applies to social security benefits] of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument; and sections [The "forfeiture rule"] to [Application for financial provision not affected by the rule] and [Exclusion of murderers] of this Act shall come into force on the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the day on which it is passed.

Mr. Abse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment simply lays down when the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is to come into force. The social security provisions are
to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order",

and other clauses are to come into force three months after the Bill has become an Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.

Title

Lords amendment: No. 16, in line 1, after "relief" insert
for persons guilty of unlawful killing

Mr. Abse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17.

Mr. Abse: As this is the last set of amendments, once again I thank the Solicitor-General and, in particular, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who has been very helpful to both my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) and me in giving us the benefit of his guidance, support and assistance throughout the Bill's passage.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. I am sure that his constituents will be alive to the efforts that he has made to ensure that a wrong is put right without subverting ancient principles, but in a way that shows both charity and compassion towards those who find themselves in the awful dilemma to which the Bill applies.
The amendments reshape the long title and explain it so that it can be fully understood. In particular, they clarify the Bill's objectives. Of course, they do not alter the Bill's contents but simply endow the long title with better grammar and, some would say, an improved syntax.
As I reach the end of the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering gave me to steer my ninth Bill-as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West so kindly said-through the House, I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 17 agreed to.

Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21 OF 1956 C. 74

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[14 May]—That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill, which consists of only one substantive clause, has been fully debated, amended and approved in the other place. It was given an unopposed Second Reading in the House and it has completed a most satisfactory Committee stage. I am glad to say that the Bill enjoys the support of both the Government and the Opposition. It is based on a


specific recommendation of the Whitford report on copyright. The recommendation, which was supported without reservation by the Government, stated that to be in possession, by way of trade, of infringing copyright material should be an offence under section 21 of the Copyright Act 1956.
At present, summary remedies for the infringment of copyright are provided in section 21 of the 1956 Act. It is a feature of all the offences that knowledge on the part of the accused has to be proved. I understand from several interested organisations, particularly those concerned with copyright in music, records and films, that, because of the difficulty of proving guilty knowledge, the criminal provisions are of little use and are little used in this country.
The record industry recommended that the section should be amended to make possession an offence, and to shift the onus of establishing innocence on to the accused. It was said that such a change had already been introduced—for example, in the Theft Act 1968 in relation to receiving stolen goods—to deal with the increasingly sophisticated offender. The film industry made a particularly strong plea for strengthening the criminal provisions under copyright law to provide the industry with effective protection against an increasing level of pirate activity.
We all know that technology has made control of copyright in films more difficult. Cheap and efficient equipment for making and exhibiting films in 16 and 8 mm width and the subsequent boom in the club and home movie markets have widened the avenues open to the film pirates. The development of video recorders, in particular, has made piracy even easier. Feature films are increasingly being transferred to video cassettes and programmes can easily be recorded off the air.
Once a convenient film has been obtained, further copies can be produced simply. There is no longer any need to retain the original pirate copy of the film. If it has been illicitly procured, it can be returned to the original owner, frustrating proceedings for theft. Copies can be made from films from renting libraries. There are ready markets for pirated prints in foreign countries.
The film industry has urged that changes in the law be made to remove obstacles to the effective prosecution of film pirates and dealers in, and users of, illicit copies. The film industry also urges effective deterrence by way of penalties other than the trifling penalties for criminal breaches under the existing Act. I shall have more to say on that matter. The film industry has also made the point that the penalties should be of the same order as those provided under the Theft Act.
Because of the difficulty of proving guilty knowledge to the satisfaction of the court, it has been suggested that the existence of a claim to ownership of the copyright in a film by a notice in the film title in some advertisements or otherwise should create presumption of existence of ownership of copyright sufficient to defeat a lack of guilty knowledge claim. At present, the maximum fine in respect of any one transaction is £50. Submissions recommending that the penalties for offences under the Act be raised to a more realistic level in keeping with present conditions have been made by large numbers of interested organisations.
It is said that the profitability of pirating is such that, unless substantial penalties are introduced, there can be no effective deterrent by way of summary proceedings. My Bill is an interim measure—a valuable interim measure, if I may say so, pending new comprehensive Government legislation on copyright—to provide a real deterrent against the piratical manufacture, sale and hire of sound recordings and video recordings. Video piracy causes losses amounting to an estimated £100 million a year to the legitimate sound recording, film and television industries as well as damage to the interests and livelihood of all concerned.
I should like to pay tribute to the magnificent achievements of the film and television industries. Their expertise and high standards have resulted in substantial exports and substantial foreign currency earnings for the United Kingdom. There is an enormous loss of revenue, which must be a cause of great concern to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend has not come forward earlier with an amendment to deal with this enormous leak from the tax net. Admittedly, the Bill does not go as far as many would like. It will be appreciated how difficult it is for a private Member, working in close co-operation with a Member of the other place, to go as far as one would like in amending the law on such a complex subject.
The Bill does not deal with penalties. These are already being increased to a useful extent in the Criminal Justice Bill. More can be done under that Bill in future and through the Government's comprehensive copyright legislation when it eventually emerges.
In considering penalties, it is interesting to note the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) in his excellent Adjournment debate on 11 June. He said:
Before setting off for Europe, President Reagan signed into law the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendment Act 1982, which provides for stricter criminal penalties for record, tape and motion picture piracy and counterfeiting. Under the new law, which came into effect the next day, 25 May, sound recording and motion picture pirates and counterfeiters, including first-time offenders, face maximum felony penalties of up to five years imprisonment or fines of up to $250,000."—[Official Report, 11 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 579.]
That gives a good idea of the serious view that the United States Government take of the problem that we are discussing. I commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, Public Law No. 97, passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, which deals with this important point. I hope that the British Government will take account of the scale of penalties enacted in the United States when they come to consider their own more comprehensive legislation which, I hope, we can expect in the near future.
Nor does the Bill deal with the complex issue of piracy of copyright material by private individuals for use in their own homes. Nevertheless, there remains the need for urgent action in the area dealt with by this simple one clause Bill. That is strongly endorsed by early-day motion 424, standing in my name, which states:
That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to stamp out as a matter of urgency the great and growing market in pirate video cassettes; draws attention to the fact that some 65 per cent. of video cassettes sold in the United Kingdom are now seen by this means, and that this is now a serious area of illegal activity which is having a gravely damaging effect on both the production and exhibition sides of the British film industry.


I am happy to say that 141 hon. Members on both sides of the House have supported the motion. I also draw the attention of the House to a motion in similar terms in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), which has also attracted widespread support.
I should like to recall the words used to describe this Bill by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade in the debate on video cassette piracy on 11 June. My hon. Friend said:
I have done all that I can to encourage the passage of the Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment) [Lords] Bill which was introduced by the noble Lord Fletcher. The Bill is a good step in the right direction … The Bill passed through all of its stages in the House of Lords. It received its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 7 May and appeared for its remaining stages on 14 May … I thought then that the Bill was well on its way to the statute book … We were all disappointed when it was blocked, perfectly properly on procedural grounds for reasons we understand. It was an important Bill that was lost in one of those not too rare House of Commons deliberate procedural tangles. When the Bill returns on 9 July, I hope that it will receive the approval of the House. In the meantime, I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend that the Government are not so comatose or inactive as he might think."—[Official Report, 11 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 582.]
I am happy that we are here again on 9 July discussing the Bill. I hope that the measure will receive the support of the House today. I certainly confirm that the Government are not so comatose as some hon. Members have suggested on this matter. I pay tribute to the sterling work done by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade whose constant enthusiasm for the Bill, deep understanding of the problems of the film and television industries and willingness to fight for their interests are now becoming widely known.
In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will agree that, within the limited time available, the Bill should receive a Third Reading and be listed for Royal Assent. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Fraser: I welcome the Bill and particularly the provisions on the piracy of cinematograph and television film. Commercial piracy of such film is widespread and constitutes a threat to the survival of the film industry, particularly in this country where there is no effective legislation. Lists of video films available from tape libraries show that there is a danger of a drift into the production of nothing but cheap, nasty, violent and sordid films, which are made on a low budget and have some appeal, but are damaging to the reputable film industry.
I believe that the cinema film is the great original art form of the twentieth century and is comparable to compound art forms of other centuries such as opera and ballet. At its best, cinema is magnificent and the great directors and producers are entitled to rank alongside Rubens and Beethoven as masters of their art. Film is a magnificent art form at its best because it brings together writers, actors, composers, cameramen and prop makers. It is superb on the grand scale and it would be a tragedy if it were destroyed.
We appreciate that films are expensive to make and can be supported only by patronage. The piracy of films by video tape and illicit copying is destroying patronage, and production money is not coming through.
Those who plunder and pirate films and other recordings by making illicit tape copies are as much art thieves as someone would be who stole the Mona Lisa or

a Rembrandt painting. It would be a tragedy if the brilliant spectacle of film, which developed from technology in this century, were to be destroyed by the technology of the video recorder. Piracy places in jeopardy the industry and the livelihood and prospects of artists, technicians and workers. I strongly support the Bill, and I hope that it will be vigorously prosecuted by the Government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that the Bill does not go far enough. We understand why that is, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us about fuller legislation to protect the industry and those who work in it. Would it be possible to promulgate a code among video recording manufacturers to make detection easier? There are difficulties in proving knowledge on the part of pirates.
I have noticed when looking through video tapes that it is difficult to distinguish those on which films are recorded from those that are freely available in the shops. It may be that all those that I have looked at have been pirated copies, but there is a need for more effective methods of producing copies so that knowledge can be proved more easily.
I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Uxbridge. His Bill is supported by the whole House, and we look forward to its vigorous prosecution as soon as it becomes law.

Sir Paul Bryan: I wish briefly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and to welcome the Bill. It would be churlish not to welcome a Bill which seeks to remedy the evils of the theft of copyright, and if I tend to underline the Bill's limitations it is simply to stimulate the Government to hurry further down this road with all speed.
When a criminal is contemplating crime, I imagine—not having had personal experience of that-that he instinctively has three considerations in mind: the state of the law, the penalties, and the chance of being caught. If we look at the Bill in that light, we see that it makes the law stronger by making possession of an infringing copy of a recording an additional offence. That might make a would-be criminal think twice, but when he looked at the penalty and found that it was a fine of £50, or not much more, he would laugh out loud and go ahead.
If the would-be criminal went further and thought about the chance of being caught, he would see that there is almost no activity by the police on this front. A criminal might be making thousands of pounds out of his crime, but what policeman will arrest him when the penalty is only £50?
Although I fear that the Bill will not be particularly effective in practice, I hope that our discussions will prod the Government and help the Under-Secretary, who is keen on the Bill, in the direction in which he wants to take it.
Will the Under-Secretary tell us the timetable for the reform of copyright? The work started with the establishment of the Whitford committee in 1973. The Government will still be considering comments on the Green Paper until August and the EEC must be consulted after that. I do not know how long that will take, but it is obvious that there is no chance of legislation in the next Session, which means that there is no chance of legislation in this Parliament. It is clear that long-term legislation is not in sight.
In those circumstances, it is all the more urgent that we should increase the penalties for breach of copyright. I understand that that can be done quickly, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what can be done in that area and how long it will take to bring in the necessary amending legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge mentioned the penalties in America. They are very much greater than the penalties in this country and one can see that they could be effective immediately. That is why I press the Government to increase the penalties with all speed. It is the one action which could be immediately effective.
If the Government do not take such action, the rewards of the crime will continue to boom, penalties will remain derisory and detection will remain unlikely. Video piracy, which is already widespread, will spread even further and become more deep-rooted and harder to eradicate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the Bill in principle and I am sure that it will be given a Third Reading. However, as has been emphasised on both sides of the House, we need Government legislation and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us the timetable for its introduction.
Video piracy is a relatively recent technological development, but action to curb it is urgently needed. It is estimated that piracy results in losses of about £100 million a year, a fair chunk of which is lost to the film industry.
It is expensive to embark upon film production. Even a modest production—for example, "Gregory's Girl" —costs about £200,000. Larger productions such as "Octopussy"—the next Bond film—and "Superman 3" being prepared at Pinewood will have budgets of £10 million or more. "Star Wars", which is being prepared in a British studio, has a budget of several million pounds. They all generate a great deal of employment. Pinewood has about 500 or 600 full-time staff and an apprentice scheme teaching 40 people various aspects of film manufacturing. It is the only permanent studio with permanent staff in this country. The work of all those people over several months can be set aside by relatively cheap equipment costing a few thousand pounds that can be used to produce pirated copies of the films if a print can be obtained from a projectionist or hired from a library or a video cassette that has become available.
Video piracy will increase if there is no firm legislation. It is a lucrative source of revenue and the seed corn for new productions will be restricted. Those people who invest several million pounds in a very risky business will see the revenue from their ventures diminish and they will not be prepared to finance further productions. Video piracy will significantly affect their revenue unless clear and severe curbs are placed on video pirates.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that the film industry is a popular twentieth century art form. We should take action to give people who invest their money in film production—there are too few of them—the opportunity to ensure that the revenue returns to them for further productions.
The Whitford committee made a number of recommendations. In paragraph 708 of its report it said:

We have been told by a number of interested organisations, particularly those concerned with copyright in music, records and films, that because of the difficulties of proving 'guilty knowledge' the criminal provisions are of little use and little used in this country.
The Bill does not provide an answer to the problem of guilty knowledge.
The Whitford committee proposed that possession itself should be a criminal offence, but that it should be a defence for a person to show that he had no cause to believe that the item was pirated. That should be the subject of action by the Government, and the Bill is welcome because it incorporates one of the Whitford committee's recommendations—that it should be a criminal offence if a person is dealing by way of trade. The problems of proving the case remain. I hope that this legislation will encourage the police to take action against video pirates and the libraries that offer pirated films for hire. The difficulty of proving guilty knowledge still remains, and I hope that the Government will do something about that.
The Criminal Justice Bill presently proceeding through the House will affect all penalties, but legislation aimed at a particular problem has a greater impact if it contains the penalties. The Government should draw the attention of all interested bodies, including the police authorities, to the increase in penalties in related legislation.
With piracy there is no Eady levy revenue as there is with cinema seats. When people buy or hire pirated video cassettes they do not go to the cinema, and there is no Eady levy money to help the producer or the National Film Finance Corporation, which is an important source of finance for small indigenous films. We should encourage the making of films like "Gregory's Girl". The National Film School provides an opportunity for people to learn the art and craft of making films. It is an important source of new talent and an important opportunity for television. The Children's Film Foundation is an important opportunity to provide films designed for young audiences. There is a dearth of films for young audiences. We should diminish the emphasis on sex and violence and make films suitable for children. All those opportunities are at risk because of piracy. There is no revenue, too, for the film producer. However, there is no Eady levy on the sale of video cassettes properly produced.
I welcome the Bill, although it has limitations. It is a mark on the way to control. The onus is on the Government to produce comprehensive legislation to deal with the problems.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and support the Bill. I, too, have qualifications, but they are not deep criticisms.
The Bill is the first act in a long play that I hope the Under-Secretary of State will look at in total fairly soon. The film industry's problems are not confined to piracy of copyright. Many other areas need to be looked into. The whole issue needs to be dramatically pulled together if we are to have a surviving British film industry.
Stealing should be stopped. When people in a high growth industry steal who may not normally think of thieving, they must be made to realise that they are stealing and not only stealing property but artistes' creative ideas and their livelihood. I welcome the first attempt to


implant in the minds of video pirates who have set up shop and may believe that they are doing no wrong, the fact that they are taking away the livelihood of actors, technicians and struggling film directors, who, contrary to popular belief, are not rich, fat cats living off the cream of the land.
With huge and accelerating technological advances we may not fully be able to control the copyright problems that will face us in the next few years. Soon we shall be looking in more detail at the problems of cable television and satellite. Projecting ahead five or 10 years, and thinking about copyright as it was designed for the written word, it is impossible to see how the Government can maintain control. Urgent consideration should be given by the Government to a levy on every blank tape, be it video or sound, sold in this country to be redistributed through, perhaps, the Eady fund. There is a not inconsiderable market for sound tape pirates. Even if we cannot control the piracy, the levy funding could go to the creation of artistic works of film or sound.
I am worried about whether the policing will be sufficient to deter these criminals—for that is what they are. I regret that we have had to avoid the necessity of proving sale or hire. In my morality there is a similarity to driving and drinking offences, but someone should not be guilty until they are proved guilty. I regret the necessity, but I accept the reasons, for going down that path. We should consider how to solve that problem.
I am also anxious because the honest maker of small films might be caught by the Bill. The Bill quotes section 21(4A) of the 1956 Act, part of which reads:
Any person who, at a time when copyright subsists in a sound recording or cinematograph film, by way of trade has in his possession any article which he knows to be an infringing copy of sound recording or cinematographic film".
The phrase "any article" is a wide definition. A man making a documentary film who wishes to put a music track on it might have in his possession a tape from a library. If he uses it he might have to prove that he did not know that the tape was pirated. That might affect a genuinely, hard-working and honest technician who has nothing to do with big films and pirating copies.
I welcome the Bill because the money chasing out of the film industry towards pirated cassettes has closed cinemas throughout the country. I hope that all hon. Members have received letters such as I have received from the manager of a local cinema. Mr. Gleitzman, the manager of the ABC cinema at Gravesend, drew the matter to my attention. I hope that all cinema managers realise that if they do not police their cinemas and stop the exodus of reels of film from the projection room the avenue will remain open for a high-rise, high-growth business. I hope that we are on the way to a significant reform for the British film industry.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on promoting the Bill. This is the fifth private Members' Bill that he has promoted. The Bill is important. I assume that it contains only one clause because of the difficulty of getting private Members' Bills through Parliament. As a result the Bill omits several important issues that we should take into account. I trust that the Government will take those issues up on our behalf.
The Bill is a direct result of the Whitford committee's recommendations. The committee believed that this was

the way to deal with the matter easily and swiftly. A £50 fine is now totally inadequate. An article by Simon Kinnersley in the Daily Mail of 28 April carried the heading:
Super spies on a pirate hunt.
The article mentioned the Nottinghamshire couple who happily paid back £750,000 in respect of their pirate video businesses.
No one could accuse me of being other than in favour of small businesses. However, enterprise of this kind takes matters to ridiculous lengths. We must, of course, be fair to the industry as a whole, and there is no doubt that the different companies are unable to provide an adequate film service unless they receive the rewards that are theirs by right. Unless we are able to channel to them a respectable proportion of the royalties to which they are entitled, we are failing in our duty to ensure that we have the healthy film industry that we require.
In recent years we have experienced a large measure of sex exploitation through the medium of film because, for a period, that seemed the only way in which funds could be raised. I hope that we have passed through that phase and that we are getting on to a much more healthy basis. But it is entirely wrong to put that in jeopardy by reducing the funds that should rightly go to the producers of films. That being so, a fine of £50 is wholly inadequate.
I greatly appreciated the remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about the gross loss to the Exchequer, because this is extremely relevant. If £100 million a year is being lost in this way, it is being stolen from other taxpayers. Other taxes are having to be charged at a higher rate because the people concerned are not paying their fair proportion of the total charge on the economy. I should have thought that this was of particular interest to the Treasury and that it should set about putting it right. I hope that this is but the first step which will be taken and that my hen. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade will be able to say that we can expect some considerable enlargement.
It appears from the Whitford committee report that no less than 65 per cent. is the estimated amount of video business which does not go through the proper channels. That suggests that this aspect of fraud in the industry is considerable. Major steps have now to be taken to put matters right. I call upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to announce some very substantive measures from the Government for dealing with this issue.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on promoting the Bill in the House of Commons, it having been introduced in the other place earlier.
As I predicted in my opening remarks in an earlier debate, we seem to be having a film day. With a short intermission, today's debates have been largely about the film industry.
If the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill was important from the film industry's point of view, this Bill is of even greater importance. It will have important commercial effects on the film industry.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the British film industry and all who work in it. I can well understand the frustration, if not despair, at the exploitation of loopholes in the law—an exploitation that


has increased as a result of technological developments in copying and broadcasting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) said, it has created greater opportunity for stealing; not just money but other people's enterprise and creative ability—one of the worst forms of stealing. It means that jobs in the film industry are put at risk, and that in a particularly difficult period.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on bringing forward legislation to deal with the problems. The motion that was tabled to ensure that there was a Third Reading debate is no criticism of the Bill. It gives Parliament an opportunity to debate the Bill and to exert a little muscle with regard to weaker areas where the Bill might not go as far as one would wish. That is no criticism at all of my hon. Friend. We all know the difficulties that face an hon. Member in introducing legislation. Only a limited time is available and I have my eye on the clock because I do not want to put this admirable Bill at risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) made three telling points about the objectives of copyright legislation, the ignoring of which would enable people to flout the law. His first point concerned the state of the law, the second penalties and the third the possibilities or otherwise of being caught committing piracy.
The Bill admirably fulfils the first objective. As the title makes clear, it makes it an offence to be in possession of an infringing copy of a sound recording or cinematograph film by way of trade.
Perhaps I should stress the words "by way of trade", because my hon. Friend made it quite clear that there was no attempt in the Bill—I should be nervous of supporting any such attempt—to protect the practice of copying videos from television in private homes, although some right hon. and hon. Members may disagree about that. However, we should protect the personal enjoyment in the home of many people who possess a video for their personal use. The Bill in no way undermines that, nor does the House wish to do so.
My hon. Friend's second point concerned penalties. I sympathise with him when he says that the penalties for committing an offence under the Bill will be pitifully low in comparison with the rewards that pirates enjoy from their ill-gotten gains. I believe that £50 and £25 are the figures. Before my hon. Friend intervenes to put me right, I should say that it is a summary offence to engage in certain specified types of dealing, although the current maximum fines of £25 per infringing copy and £50 per transaction are—in the view of the Minister, and certainly that view is shared by me and many right hon. and hon. Members—far too low.

Mr. Shersby: Perhaps I should make it clear that the fines apply per infringing copy. If the pirate has 100 copies, the fine can apply 100 times. That makes a big difference, when one thinks of the increase in the fines being contemplated in the Criminal Justice Bill now being considered in another place.

Mr. Proctor: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I said that the fine was £25 per infringing copy, and my hon. Friend is quite right to introduce the multiple effect. I do not have a video, although I wish that I had. Perhaps I should have bought one this morning, instead of talking about videos. I know that video cassette tapes are expensive—at least those that one buys in shops

are relatively expensive. They can be as much as £30 or £40, and some are even more expensive. So even at £25 per infringing copy, I imagine that there is a substantial profit margin on them to make the pirate's work worth while, although there may be legislation to confiscate the tapes. Perhaps the Minister will say something about confiscation of pirated copies which are proved to be such in court and what happens to those tapes. Most right hon. and hon. Members think that the present penalties are woefully low and must act, if not as an encouragement, certainly as no bar to the activities of the film pirates that we are trying to catch in this legislation.
My hon. Friend's third point was about the chance of being caught. The Bill goes some way to making it easier for the prosecution to establish a case against the person who is caught. It does not do much about opportunities to catch the person who is doing the film pirating. How will the Bill affect the burden on the police, who already have onerous duties, of catching the film pirates? Does my hon. Friend have any statistics about police success so far? If he cannot give me that information now, it will not lessen my support for the Bill, but perhaps he or a Minister from the Home Office will write to me later.
Several hon. Members mentioned the new technology that makes it easy to pirate tapes. I made some inquiries of a respectable and responsible video duplicating company that works for the BBC, independent television and the major film companies. I was told that that small firm can turn out in one day more than 1,000 tapes because of the sophisticated machines that it uses. I am sure that other companies can turn out even more tapes. Technically, it is easy to copy tapes and to steal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend said, the copyright of others and the fruits of the investment that others have made.
Does my hon. Friend know anything about the breaking and entering into official companies overnight in order to use their machines to make illegal tapes? I understand that the offence occurs and that respectable companies must have tight security.
Some of my hon. Friends mentioned the loss of revenue to the Exchequer. I should be interested to know whether the Exchequer has calculated the loss in revenue to public funds. I know that it must be a difficult calculation, but it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could give us an estimate.
Many of my hon. Friends have said that this Bill is the first step. Legal remedies already exist, some of which have proved effective if they are applied, in the Minister's words "energetically and systematically".
In response to my letter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary my hon. Friend wrote to me. The third paragraph of his letter states:
I believe that more must be done to curb what is a growing criminal activity. Video piracy damages those who legitimately market video films, those who claim legitimate royalties and, further back in the chain, those legitimate film producers who are looking to profits from video sales to contribute towards the original cost of making the film or future films. Furthermore, pirate video films, which appear on the market before the legitimate product, may damage the trade of cinemas showing the screen version.
My hon. Friend added that we cannot continue with a situation in which 75 per cent. of the retail side of the trade is, in his estimation, illegal. He explained that this will undermine the general public's faith in the law of the land.
It was right for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to introduce the Bill and it is right for hon. Members on both sides of the House to press my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has been most understanding, as has his Department, about these matters and concerns, to go even further than is provided for in the Bill. I am delighted to support the Bill and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent and become an Act in the not too distant future.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I shall repeat briefly some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). I was glad to hear him express warm support for the Bill, which came from another place and was presented to this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). We should pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done. He has become one of the leading experts in the House on this complex and complicated area of the law. He is perhaps second only to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. They might decide between themselves that they are both equally expert.
That gives me the opportunity to say that I am grateful for the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. It is not an easy one to tackle and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will be the first to concede that the Bill is an interim holding measure. More will need to be done fundamentally to tackle the complicated area of copyright.
I apologise for not being in my place when the debate on Third Reading began. Friday is by convention, habit and practice the day when constituency cases are tackled that have had to be postponed because of the pressures of the House earlier in the week. I was delayed because I was dealing with a number of constituency matters.
I shall concentrate on one of the most acute areas of infringement of copyright. It is one in which a flourishing crime practice is building up in a way that is most distressing and disturbing for the authorities to contemplate. I refer to video piracy. The use of the video cassette is one of the main expressions of general piracy and infringement of copyright. There are growing instances of cinematograph film being transposed on to cassettes to he used in video clubs illegally without any permission or payment of copyright, or any official authorisation under the 1956 legislation. The clubs and the members flourish, but the creators of the original copyright and the cultural creation that went behind it—the leading box office film, for example—has no recourse or benefit.
Then there is the piracy of video cassettes themselves, in which the original creative label is taken and the cassette reproduced illegally. That, too, is now very big business. This very serious problem has grown dramatically even in the last year, having started rather quietly a few years ago. The sooner decisive action can be taken in what we all acknowledge to be an extremely difficult area to tackle, the better it will be. I know that the industry itself has made a number of suggestions which deal not only with the strengthening of the copyright law.
As we know, video piracy basically involves producing illegal copies of movies on video tape or copies of original video cassettes. There is beginning to be trouble, too, with video discs, which are brand new and have scarcely started. The copies are then sold or hired on a temporary

or longer-term basis. There are various manifestations of this type of activity, but I am extremely worried at the way in which organised crime has moved in so quickly to take advantage of the weaknesses in the present Copyright Act, which we all know is utterly inadequate to deal with this type of criminal activity. Lord Fletcher has therefore done us a service in launching the Bill, and my hon. Friend has done us a greater service by bringing it to the House of Commons.
The Bill makes it an offence for any person to have in his possession by way of trade a copyright sound recording or cinematographic film item which he knows to be an infringing copy. In this context, I emphasise again that the fine may be per unit or per item rather than merely covering a collective act or multiple copies.
A new copyright Act could not be completed soon enough, as we know from the difficulties that arose in connection with the Green Paper last July. The damage to the entire video industry that would occur while awaiting more fundamental legislation might be irreversible. That is the rationale of the Bill. It is sad to reflect—although even this is perhaps a reflection of the amount of entrepreneurship in this country—that because we so often lead in high technology software as opposed to hardware in areas like video and computers, the pirates have made London the centre of world operations and this is now very big business. A former Scotland Yard detective chief superintendent, Mr. Percy Brown, who I believe is now employed jointly by the 11 major film studios to lead their squads in combating piracy—it is gratifying to know that there are still 11 major studios, although it might he more accurate to describe some of them simply as studios—said recently:
London happens to be at the centre of this illegal industry"—
which, I repeat, is growing extremely fast—
not least because Britain has the fastest growing video market in the world.
One can see the link between this type of illegal activity and the misfortune that has befallen legitimate, respectable retailers of video products and audio cassettes. There is a profits slump in the industry. It is possible that too many people were encouraged to go into it, but they realise that the economic price of more than £30 for the original creative label video cassette cannot compete with the far cheaper prices of the pirates. Thus, neither the original creators nor the wholesalers or retailers can survive economically.
This problem has even begun to affect the hardware market. Although the number of machines now sold is substantial and growing fast, the real return has not merely diminished to a very small amount with price wars but in many cases has turned into colossal losses. A recent example was the audio-video retail firm, Sonic Sound in Tottenham Court Road—it probably has more shops in that street than any other such company—which is now in the hands of the receiver appointed by Barclays Bank.
Other factors contributing to the situation are the worldwide hegemony of the English language and the very wide acceptance of British television standards. It is ironic and distressing to see how the high quality and good reputation of British television and film has produced its own fallout in the development of this illicit and illegal industry.
The Bill is very important and it is vital that the House should support it. Many figures are bandied about on the extent of video piracy and I shall not add to them. However, the figure is rapidly moving towards the total


cited for the United States of America of about £500 million. That figure may not yet have been reached, but we shall rapidly reach it unless something is done. How are the investigators, who try to track down pirates, doing? The picture is mixed. There is, perhaps, greater optimism about their activities than before, but the position is extremely difficult and it would be much better to have proper legislation that provides controls ab initio instead of having to use vigilante squads—I use that phrase in the respectable sense—to deal with crimes.
On 11 June my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) mentioned the need to consider the stricter criminal penalties that the United States of America has introduced for counterfeiting sound records, tapes and motion pictures. Under the new American law I understand that sound recording and motion picture pirating and counterfeiting offenders—including, interestingly enough, first-time offenders—face maximum felony penalties of up to five years' imprisonment, or fines of up to $¼ million. Even that fine is modest when compared with the colossal sums that will be generated by such illegal activities unless they are dealt with sharply. Indeed, although America is bigger both in its size, market and number of consumers, there is, as far as we can tell, less prima facie video piracy than in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, people should be made aware that by buying or renting a pirate tape they are an accessory to theft, to an infringement of the copyright holder's legitimate rights and are acting contrary to basic human justice.
Therefore, it is esential that we should make the public more aware of the problem. I endorse the appeal made by other hon. Members that the public should scrutinise tapes carefully. That might produce a slightly cynical reaction because every consumer will want to check only the price, subject matter and material. However, if we are continually to introduce consumer protection laws, consumers must bear some responsibility for ensuring that they are not aiding and abetting an unfair and illegal trade. If they decide to remain apathetic and indifferent to that moral argument and to the criminal implications, there will not be any high-quality, original, creative tapes or films, because the genuine people will have gone out of business.
Mr. Michael Winner wrote a very good letter in The Times on 18 March 1982. He referred to the development in America of such illegal activity and rightly pointed out that prosecutions in Britain were hampered by the 1956 Act, as yet unamended, which provided penalties of between only 40 shillings and £50. In his third paragraph, he states:
Since cinema managers have reported being offered £4,000 to 'lend' films to pirates overnight, even private actions for damages are insignificant in relation to the problem. I understand the highest award in this case is £12,000 damages and £8,000 costs.
At the beginning of the letter he says that his latest film, "Death Wish II"—I do not know what the subject matter is but it is a rather disturbing title, although it comes from a distinguished producer—has the
dubious distinction of being the fastest ever available on the underground market.
He goes on to say:
Not only are illegal video tapes sold all over England at this moment, but I also understand that it"—
that is "Death Wish II"—

has been playing in pubs in Dublin for six weeks, and is available via a roundsman in Hastings on a door-to-door basis".
I understand that this has not already been quoted in the debate. I am glad to learn that. There is always a risk of this happening when one comes into a debate at a late stage.
I should like to establish the distinction—notwithstanding my remarks about members of the public as consumers being watchful and taking seriously their own responsibilities—between what might be called absolutely private video recordings, if that is a tenable concept that can be held up to proper scrutiny and explanation, and illegal pirate video recording where more than one item is reproduced.
I refer to paragraph 22 of the Green Paper of July 1981. This is a problem area that needs to be tackled although it is easy for me to say that rather than to produce a solution. The paragraph states:
No doubt recording practice is determined by the machines on the market. Those recorders which are currently available can do no more than record television broadcasts and play back recordings on television. They do not therefore represent a threat to the producers of pre-recorded video-cassettes as they cannot copy these products (except when they are broadcast). There will also be no threat to the owners of rights in video-discs when these come on the market as the machines for playing these will have no recording capacity
That is true.
It may be that the future will bring much cheaper tapes and inexpensive machines which will enable copying, in the home, of commercial pre-recorded tapes and video-discs (for example, video analogues of the music centre which provides facilities for taping audio-discs). For the present, however, the Government is not convinced that video recording for private purposes harms the interests of broadcasters, producers of programmes, film producers or any other rights owners involved in video production.
I would welcome the Minister's reaction to that important paragraph. On the face of things, it is right and acceptable. The ordinary domestic consumer or user of this machine and the tapes should be reassured officially. None the less, the question arises of the uneasy dividing line in the future, if piracy is allowed to flourish, between the genuine domestic consumer using a recording once for private family purposes where no money changes hands and the person who decides to allow in friends, first of all free, but who then decides to charge. Instead of entertaining people in the sitting room, he might then decide to use the village hall in order to attract more people and charge each of them 50p. It is possible to see that innocent and upright people would engage in this practice believing that it was legitimate.

Mr. Brinton: In quoting from the Green Paper, my hon. Friend said that a private individual with a video cassette recorder could record only once off transmission. But all that he has to do to become a small businessman is to get another video recorder. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I have seen, in a wholly respectable and legitimate company, a room full of recorders. When these are used for legal purposes, there is no criticism. When they are not, the situation becomes disturbing. I believe that the Bill will deter this sort of development. There will be the need to build more legislation on top of this measure.

Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend mentioned the hypothetical situation of a private householder first inviting visitors into his home to watch a video


performance, then perhaps charging them and then perhaps moving to the village hall. If a charge is made for admission to what would be a cinematograph exhibition, it would be caught by the licensing provisions under the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill dealt with earlier today.

Mr. Dykes: That was another well-timed intervention, which has helped the House.
The video pirates have been allowed to run rampant for far too long. The Bill will not stop their hideous piracy, but it will at least give manufacturers and copyright holders greater unequivocal protection by providing for stiffer penalties on prosecution.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): I am particularity glad of the opportunity to discuss this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) initiated a debate last month which helped to alert the public and the House to a fast-developing situation.
I begin by paying a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) who has fought for his Bill tooth and nail over the past few months. Many parliamentary procedural problems had to be overcome, and it is right that the House, the public and those in the film and television industries should be told of the tremendous amount of work that my hon. Friend has done to get the Bill through.
My hon. Friend's early-day motion and that of Labour Members demonstrated the support in the House for a measure of this nature, and the Department is grateful to have that bipartisan approach, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
The Department and the Government share the concern expressed today and in last month's debate about the extraordinary and commercially dangerous situation in which we find ourselves. The £100 million that has been mentioned as the level of illegitimate turnover is an enormous sum, but even that may be an underestimate. The Times mentioned a world market in illicit video cassettes of £500 million.
I do not know whether we should take pride and pleasure or shame and displeasure at the fact that we show such extraordinary small business initiative that we command 20 per cent. of the illicit market. I wish only that the drive and enterprise devoted to illegitimate cassette sales were devoted to more legitimate matters. The figures of £100 million and £500 million are startling, and it is estimated that probably more than 75 per cent. of video cassettes on the market are illicit. Even without any other evidence, those figures underline the need for urgent action against this growing criminal market.
If I have time I shall refer to the speeches of all hon. Members who have spoken and the different points that they made. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) is not allowed to speak in the House, but he has been most vociferous to me outside on the need to do something about this problem. I pay tribute to him, because he has been badgering me on behalf of his constituents to do something about the subject covered by the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge rightly began his speech by saying how easy it is to produce films illicitly. We all know how difficult it is to catch the projectionist who takes out a reel of film one evening and returns it the next day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) asked for the statistics relating to police successes in these matters. I shall try to find out and then write to him. As the law stands, it is extremely difficult for the police to do anything. I hope that the Bill will make it easier for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon referred to the "trifling punishment" involved—a point made by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not disguise the fact that I wish that so great and growing an industry could be dealt with by punishment that fitted the crime rather better. I should have been in favour of doing that in the Bill if it had been possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge knows from the many discussions we have had, we pursued ways in which that might be done. However, we felt that it would he better to take this modest step forward rather than to take no step at all, or a step that might be blocked. Private Members' Bills are susceptible to blocking, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) knows well, and he has my sympathy. That is why we have not gone as far as many of my hon. Friends would have liked. It is certainly our intention to bring in fuller legislation on all copyright matters when we have the opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden asked what the timetable was for the Green Paper. The deadline for response has been set at 31 August this year. Later this year the European Commission is expected to publish a memorandum setting out its ideas for action leading towards ultimate harmonisation of copyright law throughout the Community. It is not possible to predict when comprehensive copyright reform can be carried out. I assure the House that we wish to do it as fast as we can.

Sir Paul Bryan: With the best will in the world, that could not take place within three years, could it?

Mr. Sproat: I do not want to put a date on it. The House will proceed as fast as it can. I imagine that in principle we shall have the support of both sides of the House, although no doubt there will be differences of detail. I know that the Opposition see a need for proper reform in these matters.

Mr. John Fraser: The penalties are being increased in other legislation. Will the Under-Secretary consider as an immediate short-term measure, the penalty of forfeiture of the equipment as well as fining? Motor vehicles used in the commission of drug offences can be forfeited. It might add to the deterrent effect of a fine.

Mr. Sproat: That is an interesting idea. If illicit video cassettes are discovered, they are removed and destroyed or given to the legitimate holder of the copyright. He then legitimises what was once illicitly produced.
The film industry is tremendously important. Many hon. Members will have been lucky enough to see "Chariots of Fire", which was a splendid but not isolated example of what the industry can do. It is a wonderful industry. I am determined to back it up as strongly as I can. I pay tribute to its aesthetic excellence, of which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) spoke. It also makes a tremendous contribution to our balance of payments.
The other day my hon. Friend the Member for Howden mentioned the legislation passed by President Reagan. After listening to his vivid oratory, almost the first thing I did when I left the Chamber was to get hold of a copy of that legislation. We are studying it to see what we can learn.
The Bill must be seen in a wider context. Video piracy is an important criminal activity which should be stamped out. That is the business of the Bill. But we must fix not only on video pirates. The time has come for the Government and the House to look at the whole cinema industry. The legislation goes back to the 1927 statute, when A1 Jolson appeared in the first talking film "The Jazz Singer". It does not take proper account of the arrival of cable, satellite, video and television. We would be well advised to consider the area as a whole. I intend shortly to consult my colleagues in the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science to see whether we can consider all the aspects together and put fresh proposals before the House.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Bill might include the categorisation of films? Cinematograph films are categorised as U, A, AA, and X, but there is no such classification in video. Retailers have no idea whether they are breaking the law.

Mr. Sproat: Such issues would be considered in the wide-ranging review.
We should also look closely at the increase in the portrayal of violence on video cassettes, which are freely available to the public and thus to children. I shall consult my hon. Friends in the Home Office as to how we can control portrayal of violence on video, which must worry every parent in the land.

Mr. Proctor: I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the wide-ranging review, but can he assure me that that is not an attempt to put off important decisions and that a time limit will be set? Earlier, I referred to the wide-ranging review on cinema safety regulations that ran for seven years. I hope that that is not the length of time contemplated.

Mr. Sproat: We are not. When I wake up each morning I am grateful to find that I still have my job. I assure my hon. Friend that I wish during my tenure in office to complete everything that I undertake. The review will not be an excuse for putting off. It will be as snappy as I can make it, but a balance has to be struck between speed and thoroughness.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Norwood. I have taken up his point about violence on video. It is important. It does not arise directly from the Bill, except in the sense that pirates of other people's property might be involved in the making of violent video cassettes. The hon. Gentleman said that a source of revenue for the legitimate film industry was being destroyed. I agree 100 per cent.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon for quoting my letter. He said that it was excellent. I am grateful to him for that crumb of praise. In the letter I explained some of the reasons why we object to the spread of piracy. One of the reasons is that it reduces revenue for the legitimate industry.
The hon. Member for Norwood also asked whether we could introduce a code to make it easier for the public to know whether they were buying, or retailers to know whether they were stocking, pirate films. I shall examine that possibility. One of the troubles is that some of the

pirate films look so much like the real thing. I have heard that sometimes the manufacturers of legitimate cassettes cannot tell the difference between their own and pirated cassettes. We shall see what can be done, but the problem is difficult.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden invited us to hurry further down the road. I shall go as fast as is reasonable in the circumstances. My hon. Friend also talked of the laughable penalties. I have said something about that and given the timetable for action after the Government's Green Paper on copyright.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) spoke of the enormous budgets involved in some films. He said that the new James Bond film budget was about £10 million. We are talking about enormous investment by the legitimate industry. We must do everything that we can to ensure that such legitimate investment and the creation of jobs are not put at risk by the comparative ease and cheapness of rendering the exercise nugatory.
The hon. Member for Keighley talked about the seed-corn of new production. That puts the matter neatly. It covers one of the arguments that I advanced in my letter. The hon. Gentleman also talked about violent and pornographic cassettes. I agree that because the problem is difficult, it does not mean that we should not try to come to grips with it. I shall consult my colleagues to see what can be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) rightly said that many areas of the film, video and cable industries should be pulled together. That is what I want to do. I want to go back to the 1927 Act and examine the morass and maze of levies and quotas. The time has come to examine and rationalise the legislation.
My hon. Friend said that some video pirates may not know that they are doing wrong. Perhaps there are some innocents about. My hon. Friend mentioned the village hall. However, in general, the people involved are criminals and should be treated as such. The duty of the House and of the police is to stamp out this crime. We must not underestimate it. One hears stories about the Mafia being involved and how drug rings are funded by sales of violent video. The trade impinges on a nasty area. That is why the Government are determined to take it seriously.
My hon. Friend also spoke of the closing down of cinemas. This, again, is a matter which I take very seriously. I have received delegations from cinema owners on the subject. That is one of the reasons why we want to push ahead as fast as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) talked about small businesses and small businesses. He was quite right. I wish that the enterprise and initiative shown in the production of some of these illicit videos were shown in other areas. If so, the loss to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which my hon. Friend referred, might not be so great. We are talking of a loss of tax based on a £200 million turnover. That is a substantial loss that has to be made up by other taxpayers. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that aspect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon said that we were discussing films a good deal in the House today. This underlines the importance that the House of Commons now attaches to the film industry. Certainly I attach great importance to it. The fact that today we have had two debates on the film industry, answered by different Ministers from different Departments, shows the difficulty


of dealing with the industry as a whole and the need to rationalise the way in which the Government approach the film, video, cable, satellite and television industries.
My hon. Friend pointed out that we were discussing a kind of stealing. It is theft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) reminded me,
Who steals my purse steals trash".
Here we are talking not just about honour, which was the point of that quotation, but about the theft of creative ability, of enterprise and of all those commodities that any Government should do their very best to foster. It is theft of a particularly despicable kind. I have told my hon. Friend that I shall try to let him have some statistics about the success of the police and the difficulties under which currently they are operating.
In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East emphasised the criminal nature of the activities, how fast they were growing and how far they were spreading. We must not underestimate the problem. London has become the world centre of these criminal activities.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for their support for the Bill—support which the Government also give. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge for his sterling energy in getting the Bill, I hope, through the House. I wish the measure and its consequences the very best.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I want first to say a word of thanks to the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household. As you know from your past experience Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Friday Whip has very special responsibilities. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to have at least some time so that this most important issue may be brought before the right forum—the House of Commons.
At the same time, in moving the Second Reading of this measure, I have to apologise to some of my hon. Friends. In the course of winding-up the last debate, the Under-Secretary of Stale for Trade mentioned one of the problems that we have with private Members' legislation. I refer, of course, to the blocking of Bills. It is sad that the House has not yet found a way to stop worthwhile Bills, which would receive a large measure of support, from being blocked on a Friday. If a Bill attracts interests vitally opposed to it, the inevitable consequence is that, regardless of their worth, subsequent Bills will not be reached.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) whose Maritime Safety Bill arises from the Penalee lifeboat disaster; to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who has a Bill on travel concessions for the unemployed; to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who has a Bill on fuel standing charges; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) who is also in the Chamber. Had his Bill been reached, we might have solved some of the problems arising on Friday's with Private Member's Bills.
I remind the House what the Bill is not about. It does not seek to prohibit cigarettes, pipes or any smoking habits of individuals. It does not even extend to a prohibition of advertising. It will be seen from the first clause that the aim is to control the sponsorship of advertising by, for example, sports bodies. That control is not obligatory but, in the light of the present appalling situation, it gives the Minister for Health power to stop people being persuaded to become addicted to the habit of cigarette smoking, if he desires to take such power.
The only interest that I have to declare is my interest in health. The House will know that my time here is spent on that major preoccupation. I am not so much concerned about death, in spite of the fact that the Royal College of Physicians reminds us that there are 95,000 premature deaths per year—even the Prime Minister accepts that there are 50,000 premature deaths. By premature death, I do not mean death that occurs about six months too soon, but 10 or 15 years too soon. I am talking about family men and women who may lose their lives merely because they contracted the habit of smoking at an early age, with all the resultant effect on health.
I have spoken on this subject in the House once a year during the past 16 years. My main concern is to stop young people contracting the habit of smoking. It is vital to do


that. Recent statistics from the Social Science Research Council show that, of 1,000 young adult workers, about one will be murdered, about six will be killed in road accidents, and about 250 will die before their time because of cigarette smoking.
Other issues are involved. There are always pros and cons in any debate. One has to think of employment, economics, and other important issues. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) in his place. He has a great interest in zoos. On proceedings on a private Member's Bill last year, he tabled about 160 amendments on zoos, and of course, we did not get to the end, nor reach my Bill dealing with tobacco products. The hon. Gentleman is a good constituency Member and he is therefore worried about employment in his constituency.

Mr. Michael Colvin: rose—

Mr. Pavitt: As this is a short debate, I have decided not to give way. If I give way to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, I shall have to give way to other hon. Gentleman. I apologise to him, because I did mention his name and he is therefore quite entitled to rise to his feet.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Pavitt: I come to the important economic aspects, as shown by the Royal College of Physicians. Because of the smoking habit, some 50 million days are lost in productivity. This nation is not without its economic problems, so this is an aspect that we should consider. I draw the attention of the House, not so much to death, because we all die some time, as to suffering. I know that in health debates we are inclined to concentrate on cancer, because it is an emotive subject. I draw attention to the far more torturous disease of emphysema. I invite any hon. Member to accompany me to St. Thomas' hospital or to Westminster hospital to see people dying, literally by inches, gasping for every breath. No civilised society should accept that method of dying. I am sure that any hon. Member who has witnessed the tragedy, not just of the person who is gasping his last breath, but of the visitors who sit at the bedside of the dying person and watch the process, must be appalled.
I shall not weary the House with many personal accounts. However, I shall give one example of a woman constituent of mine, aged 55, who died recently when still in the prime of life. She had carcinoma of the lung. She was an addict. I tried to deal with her problem. She knew that it was fatal to smoke. She had had one lung removed, and her only hope was to give up her addiction. It was an addiction, so it was a tremendous pull for her. She was a highly intelligent woman and she knew the consequences, but she could not escape from the addiction.
The ball game in cigarette smoking and health should shift more to the Department of Health and Social Security.

Mr. Colvin: rose—

Mr. Pavitt: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have been in the House for some time, and I have a reputation for courtesy. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but is is now 1.58, and this debate must finish at 2.30 pm.
This Bill is nothing new. It already exists, for the most part, on the statute book of the Republic of Ireland. It also follows legislation in Norway and Finland. Although there

has been some lobbying of hon. Members by the tobacco companies about the effects of the banning of advertising in Norway, I shall give the House the facts recently published in Oslo. At a press conference to mark the tenth anniversary of the Norwegian Council on Smoking and Health, it announced the results of a nation-wide survey of smoking habits among schoolchildren aged between 13 and 15. In all age groups, the prevalence of daily smoking had risen between the 1957 and 1963 polls and again between 1963 and the poll carried out in 1975, the year when a similar Act to the Bill that we are now discussing came into force in Norway. The Act not only banned all tobacco promotion, but stepped up health education about smoking and increased help to smokers to give up. That Act went much further than this Bill.
The 1980 results show that the percentage of daily smokers in all three age groups has fallen well below the 1975 level, and, whereas in 1975, more girls than boys in each age group smoked daily, by 1980, the girls' smoking was slightly less than the boys', as it was in 1963.
I am worried about young people contracting the habit and this shows that legislation similar to this Bill has been effective. The most important matter is the way in which youngsters contract the habit and the Bill is concerned especially with the sponsorship of sport. It does not forbid such sponsorship, but it gives the Minister of Health wider power. The youngster who contracts the smoking habit is a customer for life.
The House will recall the recent television coverage of snooker championships. Since 1965, advertising has been forbidden by the BBC. The Guardian estimated that, for the tens of thousands of pounds that are paid in sponsorship in snooker championships, the same advertising on the other channel would have cost £3 million. Everyone wishes to help sport, but I point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—we shall be discussing the Finance Bill next week—that an extra penny on a packet of cigarettes would raise £30 million. He can discuss the matter with the Minister with responsibility for sport. There is no reason why he should not ensure that sports are fully sustained instead of trying, in a back-door way, to obtain something from commercial interests in exchange for a promotion campaign.
The purpose of advertising is to increase sales. The Financial Times estimated that last year cigarette advertising cost about £100 million. That was made up of £40 million on press advertising, £20 million on poster advertising, £10 million on television—for pipe and cigar advertising—and £30 million on sponsorship and other advertising. Press and magazine expenditure was 74 per cent. higher during January to July 1980 compared with the same period in 1979.
That is big money. When it comes to commercial profit and pressure, not only the tobacco companies but the advertising and promotional experts have an interest in the matter. The £100 million worth of advertising is part of the livelihood of advertising companies.
The argument was well put in an article that appeared in the New Statesman a few months ago. A rather dramatic front page carried the headline:
Selling cancer: the days are numbered".
The New Statesman is rather more optimistic than I am, after my 16 Bills in this place, to consider that the days are numbered. However, if the present trend continues and we run into the 100,000 or 150,000 holocaust, no Government of any colour will be able to stand aside and


let it continue. I shall quote part of the article that appeared in the New Statesman, which highlights the enormous pressure on large commercial and industrial interests. It states:
What the Sunday Times did not tell its readers was … £500,000
had been lost
in … advertising because the tobacco company W. D. &amp; H. O. Wills does not like what the paper says about cigarettes.
The Sunday Times story of the transplant operation was accompanied by an article by the paper's medical correspondent … entitled 'How the lives of seven men were changed by a heart transplant'.
The medical correspondent reported in one case that the patient
smoked 60 cigarettes a day, at first Senior Service and later Embassy King Size, and they were helping to kill him.
Another patient's
heart was permanently damaged by smoking 60 cigarettes a day—Benson and Hedges were his favourite brand.
I accept that there are commercial and economic considerations but I contend that Parliament should be the ultimate authority on these issues. There are pressures on what should be a free press, and surely The Sunday Times should be as free a press as any. It should not find itself losing £500,000 because it dared to tell its readers the facts about these matters.
Recent research shows that there is a new phenomenon of cancer risk for those who do not smoke. I had the privilege of serving on the Medical Research Council and I and other members of the council were always worried about the deaths of female non-smokers. Research has shown that one can contract a carcinogenic agent as a non-smoker by being a passive smoker and living in a smoke-filled environment. The article on the recent Japanese study reads:
The study has shown that non-smoking wives who were exposed to their husbands' cigarette smoke developed lung cancer at higher rates than non-smoking wives of non-smoking husbands. The study carried out … at the National Cancer Centre Research Institute in Tokyo, followed up 91,540 non-smoking wives aged 40 and above from 29 health districts for a period of 14 years. The mortality rate for those married to men who smoked 20 or more cigarettes a day was twice as high as that of women married to non-smokers.
Some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, in the Campaign for Freedom, have put pressure on British Rail to have smoking permitted in dining cars. I wish that the campaign would recognise that just as one accepts that there is a case for the freedom of a person to smoke there is a case for the freedom of a person not to be forced to sit in a smoke-filled atmosphere.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pavitt: I am sorry, but I have already made it a rule not to give way as I shall never finish my speech if I do.
I ask those who are really concerned about freedom not only to consider the freedom of those who desire to smoke. I repeat what I have said many times. People are perfectly entitled to smoke, but I should prefer it to be done with consenting adults in private.
The industry's campaign to encourage female addiction to cigarettes is both callous and ruthless. I take as an example the advertisements in The Sunday Times and The Observer glossies last weekend in which a very nice, colourful advertisement appealed directly to women, pointing out that Kim, the cigarette for women, is
Long and slender, light and mellow!

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) will forgive this reference to her as she was when I first knew her many years ago.
I also condemn the devious way in which, with the ink hardly dry on the recent sports sponsorship agreement with the Government, the same brand of cigarette, which I believe is produced by British American Tobacco, subtly broke that agreement. Those who enjoy sports events will have seen the fine performance of Martina Navratilova, the winner of the Wimbledon women's singles. They will also have seen that the sportswear that she wore carried an advertisement for Kim, "the ladies' cigarette". That is a back-door method of evading the decision made by the House and the Government year after year.
I shall give another apt quotation on the subject of females. I assure the House that I have no power with The Times newspaper, but I recommend that hon. Members read the The Times Health Supplement in the Library as it carries a full middle-page spread on the tragedy afflicting women. It says that at the present time
medical services in Western, industrialized countries are witnessing an epidemic of female lung cancer. In 1980, nearly 8,400 women in England and Wales died of lung cancer. And although the peak of the male lung cancer epidemic is over, the female peak is still to come. Between 1969 and 1978 lung cancer rates increased by more than 50 per cent among women while increasing by 8 per cent in men. Although it is unlikely that women will overtake men in the lung cancer stakes, current mortality rates suggest that, by the year 2010, lung cancer will overtake breast cancer—concurrently claiming nearly 12,200 lives a year—as the number one cancer killer in women.
Therefore, in claiming that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to help the young, I should also say that we male chauvinist pigs should have some consideration for what is happening to women.
There is another avoidance of voluntary codes which emphasises the need for legislation. I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Trade on the subject of video. Another way around the television ban has been to put tobacco advertisements on video tapes of the type that the House discussed earlier today. I refer hon. Members to yesterday's edition of The Guardian, which states: "Video wriggles through TV ban".
I introduced an identical Rill last year, and it arose from an exchange that I had with the former Secretary of State for Social Services, now Secretary of State for Industry. Between 18 months and two years ago he announced a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry. He said:
The main point about this new agreement is the unmistakable demonstration that the voluntary agreement system of trying to reduce smoking is a complete failure. Even after a year's hard fighting by Ministers, the cigarette companies have not conceded anything remotely capable of beating Britain's biggest avoidable cause of death and disease.
Later last year the Daily Mirror ran an article entitled
Warning to H.M. Government Ministers … Anti-smoking campaigns may damage your prospects".
That referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) had been removed from his office and is now Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
Clause 1 gives power to the Minister but does not provide for any immediate action. As I said, it is enabling, rather that practical, legislation at this stage. Action will follow only upon the laying of statutory instrument, subject to debate under the negative procedure. In May the British Medical Association issued a press statement. On Wednesday of this week doctors in session at their annual conference reaffirmed their complete opposition to sponsorship and advertisements and carried a new


resolution, in addition to the resolution passed last year. They overwhelmingly deplored the use of sports sponsorship in promoting the sale of cigarettes. The original resolution states:
this meeting notes with dismay that whilst welcome publicity is given to the ill effects of smoking, the Government takes no firm action to reduce advertising or increase taxation on tobacco in the full knowledge that this one aspect of preventive medicine would be so instrumental in reducing illness … and proposes that:

(a) all tobacco advertising should be banned except at the point of sale;
(b) greater emphasis should be made to the general public of medical conditions other than cancer of the lung …
(c) smoking should be restricted in hospitals;
(d) smoking should be banned on public transport".

That is the doctors of our nation speaking and the House should take note.
Again, the World Health Organisation made a powerful recommendation under the title "Controlling the Smoking Epidemic". It stated:
The Committee recommends that non-smoking should be regarded as the normal social behaviour".
As time is short I shall not read the whole recommendation. In the provision of NHS services, we still seek to prevent illness rather than to incur colossal amounts of public expenditure for treatment. A previous chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Services, Sir George Godber, said in one of his annual reports that the greatest single step in that direction would be to stop the holocaust that arises from cigarette smoking. I noted his words carefully, because I do not wish to impose the same strictures on the smoking of cigars or pipe tobacco. However, I am ruefully aware that in 1982 I am a very small David facing a multinational Goliath. But it should not be "Tobacco Industry Rules OK." This House should decide. The great amount of work that can be done to prevent illness and death will be speeded on its way if the House agrees to accept my Bill.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) on his perseverence in trying to bring in legislation to impose statutory controls on the advertising, sponsorship and sales promotion of tobacco products. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's good faith. I suggest, however, that the Bill is no more than a misguided attempt by the anti-smoking lobby, of which he is a distinguished member, to drive a nail into the non-existent coffin of the tobacco industry.
The tobacco industry is well, although over-burdened, I hope the Minister notes, with taxes and duties. It is getting fitter every day. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's predicament. He has made sixteen attempts to get his measure on the statute book, and that is certainly a high figure. I believe that he would achieve wide support if he tried to persuade the Leader of the House to provide parliamentary time for a debate on this issue with a free vote. I say that because I think that the hon. Gentleman would lose, just as he will today. I shall try to persuade the House in the time that remains that this Bill would have exactly the opposite effect to that sought by its promoter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has not declared any financial interest in this industry. I wonder whether he has one and whether Accrep Ltd. has as a client any of the tobacco companies.

Mr. Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on checking the Register of Members' Interests. The answer is "No" on both counts. I have a constituency interest. That may afford me the opportunity to say to the hon. Member for Brent, South that at this time last year, when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, happened to be in the Chair, the hon. Gentleman's measure was preceded by the Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill in which I had a considerable interest, having been the one-man opposition throughout its Committee stage. That was pure coincidence. There was no attempt at what I believe is called, although it is an unparliamentary expression, a filibuster. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for trying to make that point.
I should like to try to make it clear why the voluntary co-operation of the tobacco industry and those connected with it on advertising and promotion practice is better than statutory regulation. I should like to explain why advertising is a good thing and the impact that a ban would have on consumption and the education of the public on health matters related to smoking. I should like to mention the sponsorship of sport and the economic importance of the tobacco industry not only to the United Kingdom but to the developing world in which I am sure Opposition Members have as much interest as Conservative Members.
I appreciate that the Bill is only an enabling measure. Nevertheless, we should start by discussing the ultimate—a statutory ban. That is what the Bill would enable the Minister, at a future date, if he so wished and with parliamentary approval, to introduce. The advertising of tobacco products has been criticised by the anti-smoking lobby in recent years on the ground that advertising not only sells brands but supports and expands the consumption of tobacco products. This point was made by the hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill. The industry has responded through agreements reached with the Government over the control of advertising and sponsorship. The nature of these agreements—a new one is due shortly—ensures that people, especially children, will not be encouraged to smoke and that there will be a continuing trend towards the lower-tar market. In addition, the educational value of advertisements has led to greater consumption of filter-tipped cigarettes, which take a growing proportion of the market.
Despite the notable success of those agreements, the anti-smoking lobby persists in its condemnation of advertising, sure in its belief in the fallacy that advertising means increased total consumption. The evidence from countries with bans surely suggests that not only would an advertising ban prove ineffective at reducing total consumption, but it would prove destructive by slowing the trend towards lower-tar cigarettes. In other words, the Bill would have the opposite effect from that proposed by the hon. Member for Brent, South.
My hon. Friends and I sympathise with the emotional content of the hon. Gentleman's speech and we have the greatest sympathy for his constituent in hospital, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to reduce the health risk he would be far better advised to withdraw the Bill.
Advertising does not stimulate or maintain cigarette consumption levels. Research evidence is that the


influence of advertising expenditure on large, mature consumer markets is negligible, other than at the brand level. Cigarette advertising is not aimed at turning nonsmokers into smokers. It is exclusively brand advertising, through which the manufacturer attempts to entice smokers away from other brands, to win them over to his brand and to keep the smokers loyal to that brand.
The voluntary agreements that the industry has entered into with the Government illustrate the industry's responsibility and have been extremely effective. Advertisements do not encourage people to start smoking or to smoke more, they do not glamorise smoking or make health claims and they do not depict sporting or other famous personalities.
There is a bonus from the voluntary agreements. The Government get from the tobacco industry about £3 million of support a year for research into health and smoking. I argue that that independent research would not be available if it were not for the good relationships between the industry and present and past Governments on voluntary control.

Mr.. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How much does the hon. Gentleman think it costs the NHS to treat the 30,000 people who die of carcinoma every year? Is it more than the £3 million that is donated by the tobacco industry?

Mr. Colvin: The contribution that the industry makes to the NHS and to the Exchequer generally is considerable. It contributes about £4,000 million a year through taxation and duties. That is enough to pay nearly half the cost of the NHS. I asked the Minister for Health in a parliamentary question about the cost to the NHS of treating sicknesses and diseases related to smoking. I believe that the figure given in the reply was £120 million. Other ailments treated in hospitals may have a remote connection with smoking, but we cannot point the finger at smoking alone and say that it was the sole cause of those diseases.
I argue that there are many benefits to be gained from self-regulatory agreements. Because they are voluntary, such agreements promote co-operation between the Government and industry, thereby avoiding the need for cumbersome legislation.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A precedent has been set. May I draw your attention to the fact that a full debate took place two years ago. The subject has been well ventilated in the House. Therefore, will you consider accepting the closure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I could not accept a motion for the closure after only just over three-quarters of an hour of debate on the Bill.

Mr. Colvin: Have Opposition members read the draft of the document entitled "Labour's draft programme 1982"? In it there is an undertaking to ban advertising of tobacco and tobacco products—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 23 July.

MARITIME SAFETY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Second Reading what day?

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley): With the permission of the sponsor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Friday 30 July.

ACCIDENT VICTIMS (COMPENSATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This Bill has not been printed. In accordance with precedent, I cannot put the Question to the House. No day named.

COMPANIES (DIRECTORS' REPORTS) (EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day'? No day named.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) ACT 1969 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[23 April]—That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RIGHT OF REPLY IN THE MEDIA (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CUSTOMERS' PREPAYMENTS (PROTECTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL LOBBYING INTERESTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 July.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RESTORATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 July.

FUEL STANDING CHARGES (EXEMPTION FOR PENSIONERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that a point of order can arise on this matter.

Mr. Stallard: The Bill was designed to assist pensioners with—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter of argument.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 July.

JUNIOR DOCTORS (WORKING HOURS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

DISTRICT PLANS (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed. No day named.

SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 July.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[22 January]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

COMPANIES AND BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed. No day named.

NAVAL DEFENCE AND MERCHANT SHIPPING (INQUIRY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

WAGES COUNCILS ORDERS ENFORCEMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

DEMOCRATIC AMNESTY AND UNFAIR PENALTIES (REPAYMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

SQUATTERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed. No day named.

TENANTS (CONSULTATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed. No day named.

FALKLAND ISLANDS (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear anyone object. Will you tell me who objected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is only necessary for me to hear whether objection has been taken.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that no point of order can arise on this. I am bound by the rules of the House. If I hear an objection, I have to take note of it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you heard "Object". You had an advantage that I did not have. Will you tell me from whom you heard objection?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not possible.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to help get you off the hook by informing my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), the House and the country that it was Government Whips who shouted "Object".

An Hon. Member: No, it was not.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 July.

LEAD FREE PETROL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 July.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed. No day named.

DISABLEMENT (PROHIBITION OF UNJUSTIFIABLE DISCRIMINATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed. No day named.

COUNCIL HOUSE RENTS (FREEZE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 July.

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the usual procedure for Government Whips or hacks on the Government Benches to shout "Object", but I should be grateful if you would draw to Mr. Speaker's attention the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the proceeding whereby Bills with good provisions, such as the Registration of Commercial Lobbying Interests Bill, my Bill and others are not given an opportunity to be considered. It is time that the procedure was examined so that a fairer system could be introduced and the names of those objecting registered. They stand by their view, if they have the guts to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. He knows that the Chair is bound by Standing Orders. No point of order can arise. In the 18 years that I have been in the House, the procedure has been the same on every last Friday for Private Members' Bills.

Mobile Home Owners

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to turn our minds to the problems of mobile home owners. It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State ready to reply, as I speak against the background of a consultation document that has happily been issued by the Department of the Environment.
I shall have an opportunity to deal with the strictly legislative aspects of the issues, which would not be in order this afternoon, on Tuesday week when I have the good fortune to have a Ten-Minute Bill.
No fewer than 150,000 people—some in my constituency—live in the small and often delightful bungalows known as mobile homes, although, alas, sometimes they are dilapidated caravans. I see my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) in their places. They all have mobile home owners in their constituencies. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), who cannot be here, they are anxious about the position of those people. They will be with me in my remarks.
If there is one at all, the legislative framework under which the tenure of mobile home dwellers is held is the 1975 Act. The framework has shown itself in practice to be riddled with flaws, anomalies and loopholes.
I know of the problems of the hundreds of mobile home occupiers in my constituency at the charming site at Beach Park near Wiggington on the outskirts of Tring and in the Kings Langley area. The difficulties arise not only as a result of the activities of some fringe site operators, whose disgraceful conduct has been drawn to the public's attention by the Esther Rantzen programme and the recent BBC Roger Cook "Checkpoint" programme, but in the operation of comparatively well managed sites.
The difficulty is that, to have effective protection under the Acts, a mobile home owner has to have an agreement with the site owner. In practice, only about one-third of mobile home owners enter into the agreement envisaged in current legislation. My experience is that that is probably an overestimate.
When I visited the Beach Park site in Wiggington about 18 months ago, I saw 11 mobile home owners. Only two of them had valid agreements. Even those who enter into agreements often allow them to lapse because they do not understand the technicalities of keeping them going.
The major problem arises when the home owner wishes to sell, assign his mobile home on site to somebody else and move away. The site owner is entitled lawfully to charge a commission of up to 15 per cent. When the owner has no agreement, he has no right to sell and move in that way. He is at the mercy of the site owner.
The owners of the Beech Park site believe that they do the mobile home owner a favour because they are kind enough, for a forfeit of an extra 10 per cent.—which, on a mobile home worth £10,000, is an extra £1,000—to let him assign. That may seem astonishing. What estate agent presumes to charge even 15 per cent. on the selling of a property? In this case, 25 per cent. is thought reasonable


as an additional forfeit. It causes hardship to people most of whose savings are likely to be tied up in their mobile home.
The legislation is intended to provide a workable system for the fixing of resonable reants. The expression "reasonable rents" is not in the legislation. If one cannot come to an agreement, the theory is that one side or the other goes to the county court. My hon. Friends have sufficient legal experience to know that that is unworkable and almost never used.
The Minister should seek a simpler system which ensures that, before site rents are raised, proper notice is given to the site occupant—the mobile home owner—of the opportunity for consultation. I am thinking of what happens to commercial leases, although the exact system would not apply. There should be an arbitrator to whom one can go to fix a fair market rent.
I use the expression "fair market rent" because I have no desire that the disadvantages of rent control should apply. The mobile home owners with whom I have had discussions are of the same opinion. Such suggestions have been made, but that is not the real point. We must find a way for a fair market rent to be proposed, discussed, objected to, and arbitrated, if necessary, comparatively simply.
Other problems have arisen as a result of the complexity of the law. Excess charges, such as £75 for a standard typed or printed agreement, are frequently charged on assignment. A solicitor would probably jib at making such a charge, even if he were drawing up a simple agreement on an ad hoc basis. To charge that for what is simply a roneoed sheet or two of paper is wrong, but it is happening at the moment.
Administratively, site owners frequently fail to display their names and addresses on site. Therefore, residents do not know to whom to go if they have complaints or with whom to negotiate when rent increases are proposed. Of course many site owners are exemplary in this respect, but, sadly, many are not. Therefore, one has to chase round the country in the undesirable way that the existing legislation was designed to obviate, but which it fails to do.
I am sorry to say that local authorities appear to be lax in their willingness to follow up cases of harassment. There have been some monstrous cases of harassment. The evidence coming to me from the Mobile Home Owners' and Residents' Association 1982, which happily has started up again recently with very sensible management and a very good secretary, leads me to believe that this is getting quite widespread.
I understand that chief public health officers are reluctant to get involved in these harassment cases. I ask my hon. Friend to look into that matter and to inquire of them whether their association has laid down any guidance. I should be greatly disturbed to think that guidance which discouraged them from doing their proper duty had been issued. I hope that that is not the case.
I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North an opportunity to speak, and, for that reason, I intend to sit down very soon. Briefly, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will consider drawing together the current legislative arrangements into one codified form which is simpler and more concise and direct than the 1960, 1968 and 1975 Acts which govern the position. I hope that he will consider a system

whereby, in the absence of actual refusal by a mobile home site owner, a model agreement will automatically apply, so that mobile home owners are not duped of their rights either by their own incompetence or by the activities of the site owner. I hope that we shall find a system in which reasonable minimum standards are laid down for the operation of the sites and that a straightforward system for negotiating fair market rents can be devised.
It is a matter of interest to many of my hon. Friends. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North has to say.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate because, like him, I have a number of mobile homes in my constituency and the problems with which the owners have confronted me lead me to suppose that there are some very real difficulties that have to be looked at, and that the 1975 Act in many respects is flawed.
These mobile homes have some considerable advantages because, in the parks in my constituency and no doubt elsewhere, they are a way in which people live together and help each other as communities. The costs are low. Were these housing units not available, I dare say that pressure on the public sector for the provision of accommodation would be even greater than it is. In my constituency, the gardens that they have are some of the most beautiful that I have seen.
A general point that strikes me about mobile homes is that they have become very much less mobile than they were originally. I am led to wonder whether the amending legislation at which my hon. Friend is looking will be the next stage in a continuous process towards treating mobile homes more as ordinary homes are treated at law.
I have encountered three problems. The first concerns security of tenure. Whatever else is done, I hope that the rights of mobile home owners will be protected. Under the 1975 Act, agreements do not sufficiently protect the individuals as they should.
The second problem is that of the pitch rents that are paid. There are practices that one could optimistically describe as doubtful.
The third problem concerns the county court. As a forum for resolving disputes under the 1975 Act, the county court is less than adequate. I, like my hon. and learned Friend, would be reluctant to recommend any increase in bureaucracy. However, mobile homes should, in due course, be regarded as houses because, certainly in Pinehurst Park, West Moors and Lady Bailey Park, Winterborne, Whitechurch in my constituency they are becoming permament and beautiful homes.
First, the criminal law should be able to deal with some of the practices that have been described. Secondly, either there should be arbitration for rents or the fair rent legislation might provide a means of settling the rents for such homes. Thirdly, I hope that the Under-Secretary will do what he can to increase the private rented sector to reduce the pressure on mobile home owners.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): This is the second time today that my life has been enriched by my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Hemel Hemstead (Mr. Lyell) speaking on the subject of mobile homes. I heard him on the "Today" programme over toast and marmalade this morning. I am grateful to him for what he has said and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) for what he said in support.
For reasons that will become clear, my reply will be more enigmatic and noncommittal than usual because, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, the Government have the matter under urgent consideration. By way of background, may I confirm some of the statistics and information that my hon. and learned Friend gave. Most mobile home residents live on privately owned sites. They own their homes but rent the pitch on which their homes are stationed from the owner of the site. The latest figures for the number of residents that we have are drawn from a survey carried out by the Building Research Establishment, published in 1977. My hon. and learned Friend said that there were approximately 150,000 people living in 70,000 mobile homes in England and Wales. Of those mobile homes 90 per cent. were owner-occupied and 10 per cent. rented. Ten per cent. were on local authority sites, the remainder on licensed privately owned sites.
There are three main pieces of primary legislation controlling the use of land for mobile homes and the terms on which residents occupy their homes. The first of these is the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The Act provides that privately owned mobile home sites, and holiday caravan sites, must, with certain exceptions, be licensed by the local authority.
The local authority can apply such conditions as it thinks necessary in granting a licence. The site licence must be displayed and it is open to a resident who considers that a condition is not being fulfilled to take the matter up with the local authority if he cannot resolve his dispute with the site owner.
The second piece of legislation is the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which bears more directly on the terms on which a mobile home resident rents a pitch from a site owner. It provides a basic level of protection for all residents, on both privately owned and local authority sites. The Act makes it an offence to evict a resident from the site or to remove his home without a court order. It also makes it an offence to harass a resident in order to make him leave or to stop him exercising his rights. In the case of residents on privately owned sites, the court has the power to suspend an order for possession for up to 12 months at a time.
The third piece of legislation is the one to which my hon. and learned Friend directed our attention, and that is the Mobile Homes Act 1975. It was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. Although my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend said that it was flawed and had one or two loopholes, I hope that they will both recognise that it constitutes a major advance on the position that prevailed until 1975.
The Act established a system of written agreements between site owners and mobile home owners—on licensed private sites. It applies only to those who own their homes, not to those who rent them, and it does not apply to sites owned by local authorities. The Act required that residents who were on site on 1 October 1975 had to be offered agreements covering the matters laid down in the Act. Residents who came on to site subsequently also had to be offered agreements under the Act, provided that

they notified the site owner in advance, and in writing, of their intention to occupy the mobile home as their only or main residence.
Agreements under the Act are for a minimum of five years, with an option for the resident to renew for a further three years, if he chooses. They must specify the pitch fee he is to pay and provide for an annual review of the fee. They entitle the resident to sell his home on site, subject to a discount or a commission which the site owner may charge. The maximum level for commissions, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, is currently limited by regulations under the Act to 15 per cent. The Act also provides for disputes about the terms of an agreement to be settled by the courts.
All these matters must be covered by agreements under the Act, but the provisions of the Act only apply, as my hon. and learned Friend said, if a statutory agreement has been made. A site owner is obliged to offer an agreement only in the circumstances that I have described, and there is, of course, no obligation on a resident to accept the offer. Our information suggests that no more than one-third of residents entitled to an agreement actually have them. The percentage was even lower on the site that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. Where no agreement under the 1975 Act has been made, a resident's rights will depend almost entirely on the terms of the contract that he has with the site owner.
Agreements under the Act are for a period of five years, renewable for a further three—that is, eight in all. As the first agreements were made at the end of 1975, they will begin to run out at the end of next year. The Government have, therefore, been considering whether any further legislation is necessary. In February this year, we issued a consultation paper inviting views on the possibility of new legislation and on the form that it might take.
The consultation paper made no firm proposals for new legislation, but it was intended to give people as wide an opportunity as possible to say what they wanted. I am glad to report that the response has been a good one.
I want to take up one or two of the points that my hon. and learned Friend raised, some of them in correspondence with my Department.

Mr. Lyell: Before my hon. Friend does that, will he say whether it is right that he has received valuable representations from Age Concern saying that over one-quarter of all mobile home residents are pensioners, or of pensionable age, and also a valuable and detailed representation from the National Consumer Council?

Sir George Young: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. They were two of the bodies which replied to our consultative document. We shall, of course, take on board their comments.
One of the points that my hon. and learned Friend raised in correspondence was that legislation might not be primary but secondary legislation. He said that, in his view, secondary legislation that did no more than extend the 1975 Act would be insufficient. I hope that he will understand that I cannot yet tell him whether there is to be primary legislation. What I can say, however, is that if there is to be legislation it will be primary and not secondary, because secondary legislation would not, in fact, achieve an extension of the 1975 Act. The relevant section of the Act empowers the Secretary of State to vary


any of the periods specified in sections 1, 2 or 3 of the Act, including the period which is laid down as the minimum length of an agreement.
However, my understanding is that a variation order of this kind would apply only to future agreements, not to those already made. Thus, we might prescribe that a future agreement under the 1975 Act was to be for a minimum of 10 or 25 years, but that would be no help at all to people with existing agreements which run out next year—or, indeed, to people already on site without 1975 Act agreements. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend, therefore, that the issue that the Government are now considering is whether there should be a Bill, not whether we should make an order under the 1975 Act. If there is a Bill it would be susceptible to amendment. If it was not exactly in line with the ideas put forward by my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend, they could persuade the House that it should be altered.
The response to the consultation paper was good. We received comments from nearly 100 residents, some park residents associations, individual site operators and national organisations representing both sides of the industry. Many other national bodies wrote to us, including Age Concern, the National Consumer Council, Shelter, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the local authority associations. It is a measure of the interest that has developed in the subject that so many people replied, and it is helpful to have their views.
It will come as no surprise to learn that the range of views expressed in the responses was wide and that many subjects were raised. The points that have been made today were raised by some respondents—for example, whether the site owner or resident should take the initiative towards making an agreement and what should happen in the absence of a statutory agreement. The notion of a deemed agreement, as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, is an interesting solution to the problem that the Government are considering seriously.
My hon. and learned Friend put forward solutions to many of the problems as did some other respondents. Many respondents mentioned the commission on the sale of a mobile home. That subject has given rise to strong

feelings. It is now for the Government to consider what action we should take on those points and on the others that have been put to us.
My hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend mentioned rents. The 1975 Act provides that an agreement must specify the initial pitch fee and provide for an annual review of the fee. As with the other terms of an agreement under the Act, disputes about the initial fee and the provision for review can be settled by the courts, but there has been some doubt about the powers of the court in that area and about the role that arbitration might play. It is another issue that the Government are examining in the light of the responses to the consultation paper.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Would not voluntary associations of mobile home owners be valuable in promoting their interests because there is so little liaison and co-ordination in this area? The information required and the problems highlighted by my hon. and learned Friend could be dealt with more easily on the basis of concerted information.

Sir George Young: The Government were delighted to see the bursting into life again of the residents' association to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. It is vital that the Government have an authoritative and representative body whom they can consult on such issues. I endorse my hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the organisation and its officials. We are considering pitch rents carefully.
I have listened carefully to what was said today. The Government will take full account of the comments of my hon. and learned Friends and my hon. Friend and of those who responded to the consultation paper. We wish to ensure adequate protection for the residents of mobile home sites. However, we must also ensure that there is sufficient incentive for site owners to continue their role. There will be no advantage to residents if site owners feel that they can no longer maintain their sites or invest in new ones. We must strike a balance. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to my hon. and learned Friend for their advice on how best to find that balancing point, but I can say no more about the Government's legislative plans at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.